Happyjew wrote:Fafnir, the argument is as follows:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can be used to rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over.

(May not be exact wording away from book at the moment)

By allowing EL (which does not mention SA) you are rescuing the unit and for them (the unit) the battle is no longer over.

In 4th edition there was no problem because GW used WBB (which works very similarly to EL, albeit rolled for later in the game), as an example of a special rule that "saves" the unit. Additionally, with the exception of the example, and the inclusion of removing the unit as casualties, the wording for SA is exactly the same as 4th ed, and 5th ed.

The against side argument is that EL saves the unit from SA when it does not ,it brings them back from death at a later stage after SA has been resolved, you can not bring something back to life unless it was already dead .

They are DEAD,RFPAAC,WIPED OUT NO MORE SA has happened the results have not changed they are dead as per the RAW for SA ,AT the end of the phase now nothing to do with SA at all ,they by means of their special rule (taking place after SA has been done again nothing now to do with SA) are allowed to attempt to return to life (not saving them from death which would mean they never died ).

The WBB rule is gone there is a new codex and new rules the 4th and 5th ED BRB is gone ,there are now new rules anything mentioned to do with the WBB rule or any rule in the 4th and 5th ED are not legal rules, hence no longer RAW .

There is no mention that EL has to mention SA because it does not happen at the same time nor does it stop SA since again the present can not affect the past anyone that say otherwise is talking dribble .

More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

When people are ignoring the definition of "at this stage" that was posted by someone on the pro-EL side I'm not sure why I'm bothering anymore.

Have fun.

Indeed. Apparently context and rules can be ignored when inconvenient.

nosferatu1001 wrote:More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

So telling someone when they say you can affect an event that happened in the past by doing something in the present is dribble is an insult lol you have very soft skin and also that is a fact you cant affect the past in the present

The SA rule is not the same as it now has RFPAAC and we all know the argument re RPF,RFPAAC and REMOVED ,WBB is not the same it is total different and no longer exist as a rule .

Yes i do have rules there in the Necron codex and FAQ under EL, which even if they Affected the past which they cant the codeX always trumps BRB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:When people are ignoring the definition of "at this stage" that was posted by someone on the pro-EL side I'm not sure why I'm bothering anymore.

Have fun.

Yes you are ignoring or choosing you own take on its meaning

At this stage, to mean at this point in an event .
At this stage, to mean right now
At this stage, to me during this part of the event or action
At this stage ,not meaning from now until i say so .

Stage or stages is an abstract object often associated with either theater and scene or point of progress. from the definition in the oxford English dictionary


Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” .from several online dictionary's

snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

In principle you're right. In practice, EL does not invalidate the execution of SA. It just doesn't make sense to say that EL saves a unit from SA. It's overly simplistic to say, the unit was destroyed and now it's not, thus you've violated the SA rule. That's not how SA works. Save and rescue clause of SA is all about preventing the SA from being executed. Meaning, preventing the destruction of the swept unit.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

Using old rules to justify current rules interpretation doesn't seem like a valid argumentative tactic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

Again, I can't help but think you're being deliberately obtuse. SA and EL are the only rules relevant to this discussion. SA destroys and RFPaaC the affected model unless the unit has a specific rule that prevents this destruction. EL is the rule that lets the swept model return to play. These attempts to solicit rules that don't exist and can't exist given the scenario discussed is a Straw Man to justify your own line of thought.

-Yad

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

wrong you treat the unsaved wound as a saved wound because you get a secnodl chance to save it or ignore it as per FNP

You attempt to save the wound and fail so your model has taken a wound FNP allows you to ignore the effects of this wound ,for FNP to take place you must first fail a wound you don't say that wound you cause never happened, because of FNP, you say i use FNP because that wound happened

FNP takes place after the failed save and therefore cannot stop the wound from happening but rather negate its effect .

If FNP affected the past you would not take the wound and therefore would not use FNP which would mean you didn't fail the save in the first place and that's not how it works

snakel wrote:

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

wrong you treat the unsaved wound as a saved wound because you get a secnodl chance to save it or ignore it as per FNP

You attempt to save the wound and fail so your model has taken a wound FNP allows you to ignore the effects of this wound ,for FNP to take place you must first fail a wound you don't say that wound you cause never happened, because of FNP, you say i use FNP because that wound happened

FNP takes place after the failed save and therefore cannot stop the wound from happening but rather negate its effect .

If FNP affected the past you would not take the wound and therefore would not use FNP which would mean you didn't fail the save in the first place and that's not how it works

Careful here snakel. The actual FNP rule does indeed say that if you succeed at the roll you treat it as having been saved. Yes, in order to trigger FNP you must have an unsaved wound. But again, when you make the FNP roll that unsaved wound is now treated as having been saved. Treating this as a series of linear events it does mean that FNP goes 'back' and stops the wound from being considered an unsaved wound.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

Using old rules to justify current rules interpretation doesn't seem like a valid argumentative tactic.

Shock. Inconvenient when it destroys your errant timing argument isnt it?:

Again: when the rule has not changed since 4th edition ("no special rule" component) and the example special rule (WBB) occured in an entirely new TURN of the game, claiming a timing exemption for EL is a complete faiol as far as an argument goes

Can you even address the point? The rules are *exactly* the same, as regards the special rule requirement. If you continue to lalala the inconvenient facts away your argument remains irrelevant

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

Again, I can't help but think you're being deliberately obtuse. SA and EL are the only rules relevant to this discussion. SA destroys and RFPaaC the affected model unless the unit has a specific rule that prevents this destruction. EL is the rule that lets the swept model return to play. These attempts to solicit rules that don't exist and can't exist given the scenario discussed is a Straw Man to justify your own line of thought.

-Yad

SA has a rule stating the unit cannot take any further part int he battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.


Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a furhter part in the battle. IT is not obtuse to ask you to provide some actual rules suipport, for the first time this thread.

Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

Yad wrote:

snakel wrote:

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

wrong you treat the unsaved wound as a saved wound because you get a secnodl chance to save it or ignore it as per FNP

You attempt to save the wound and fail so your model has taken a wound FNP allows you to ignore the effects of this wound ,for FNP to take place you must first fail a wound you don't say that wound you cause never happened, because of FNP, you say i use FNP because that wound happened

FNP takes place after the failed save and therefore cannot stop the wound from happening but rather negate its effect .

If FNP affected the past you would not take the wound and therefore would not use FNP which would mean you didn't fail the save in the first place and that's not how it works

Careful here snakel. The actual FNP rule does indeed say that if you succeed at the roll you treat it as having been saved. Yes, in order to trigger FNP you must have an unsaved wound. But again, when you make the FNP roll that unsaved wound is now treated as having been saved. Treating this as a series of linear events it does mean that FNP goes 'back' and stops the wound from being considered an unsaved wound.

-Yad

I hear you but i still don't see how that changes the past for FNP to come into effect you still need to have an unsaved wound. and that wound is not stopped from happening at the point of taking it. Once you fail you get a second chance to save it with FNP without that wound having happened you would not use FNP .

FNP if passed negates the effect of that wound but the wound still happened and that is in the past, FNP is in the present and changes the state of an unsaved wound to a save wound ,if it changed the past then the wound would not have been unsaved and FNP would not be allowed or needed

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

...from the SA itself.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

And we agree that no special rule can save the unit at this stage and nothing does, they are RFPAAC and then we move on to consolidation the next stage ,step ,sub phase once thats done and if there are no more combats the assault phase comes to an end but wait at the end of each phase IE moving ,shooting and assault any Necrons RFPAAC that meet the requirements of RP and EL as stated by the Necron codex and FAQ get to attempt to reanimate .

As you keep saying we are ignoring your interpretation, its clear i can say the same, you refuse to accept the definition of stage and at this stage, i have posted which is dictionary English
You refuse to accept that the unit has been RFPAAC and SA has been concluded .
You continually say that the Necron special rule invalidates SA when SA is and action the death of the unit is a result .

And yes it is a good thing that SA talks about special rules and their ability to save units from SA but in this instance we are not !!! we are talking about what happens after SA has bee Resolved and that stage of the assault sub phase has ended without any rule having been broken

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

...from the SA itself.

-Yad

Yes, and for them, the battle is over.

so no coming back.

So for them the battle ISNT over?

Guess you keep ignoring the rules that disagree with you.

Great argument

Happyjew wrote:
Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can be used to rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over.

(May not be exact wording away from book at the moment)

By allowing EL (which does not mention SA) you are rescuing the unit and for them (the unit) the battle is no longer over.

In 4th edition there was no problem because GW used WBB (which works very similarly to EL, albeit rolled for later in the game), as an example of a special rule that "saves" the unit. Additionally, with the exception of the example, and the inclusion of removing the unit as casualties, the wording for SA is exactly the same as 4th ed, and 5th ed.

Thanks for the summary. All I saw was post after post arguing timing.

Here's my take: Things Change. We have a new Necron Codex operating under a new edition. You cannot take an outdated FAQ commenting on an outdated rule and assume a similar result. GW does reverse opinions (hiding in boxes from Shadow in the Warp, for example) and new writers bring a new spin to things.
So please do not bring in old baggage when discussing how new rules interact. Read exactly what the rules say and follow them.

Which is where I'm at. I'm a new player reading exactly what the rules say. SA removes as casualties and says the units can only be saved where otherwise specified. EL is an example of something specifying to do otherwise. This is RAW. Maybe GW doesn't intend for them to interact that way, but there is no way for anyone playing by RAW to do otherwise. I am not allowed to not place an EL token. I am told to do so by the rules. Nothing in SA allows me to not place an EL token and roll for it. To play otherwise is to ignore RAW and stretch RAI to a fanatical level.

So, until a FAQ comes out that tells me do to otherwise, I have to play out EL as written. I cannot rely on old editions and old FAQ's because they, effectively, no longer exist. Neither should anyone else. Rules change. Play by what's current.

No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

Fafnir, no one is using an outdated FAQ for an outdated codex in an outdated rulebook.

In 4th edition the rule for Sweeping Advance specifically calls out WBB as a special rule that saves the unit. That is why in 4th edition it could not be used.

In 5th edition the only thing that changed in the Sweeping Advance was they no longer included WBB as an example.

In 6th edition, the only change was adding that now the unit was removed as casualties.

However, EL, like WBB is a special rule that saves the unit.

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

EL would save the unit, therefore has to specifically state that it operates otherwise it does not do so, and rolling for EL is breaking a rule -which is cheating
EL would allow the unit to continue the battle, when for them the battle is over; meaning you have broken the SA rule - which is cheating

So there are two rules you have to overcome to roll for EL - now find the line where SA is specified in the EL rule, and you are good to go. Cant? Then youre not.

This is what it boils down to - EL *IS* a special rule that WOULD save the unit, therefore in order to operate it MUST specify that it works to allow the unit to return from Sweeping Advance.

DeathReaper wrote:

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

...from the SA itself.

-Yad

Yes, and for them, the battle is over.

so no coming back.

"; for them the battle is over" == fluff. Even if you could somehow justify this as an actual rule, it is only used in reference to the act of destroying and RFPaaC the affected unit. It does not mean you can't use EL.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

EL would save the unit, therefore has to specifically state that it operates otherwise it does not do so, and rolling for EL is breaking a rule -which is cheating
EL would allow the unit to continue the battle, when for them the battle is over; meaning you have broken the SA rule - which is cheating

So there are two rules you have to overcome to roll for EL - now find the line where SA is specified in the EL rule, and you are good to go. Cant? Then youre not.

EL says nothing about SA as it cant stop it nor does it, you cant stop a train hitting a car on the tracks after its already hit it

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is what it boils down to - EL *IS* a special rule that WOULD save the unit, therefore in order to operate it MUST specify that it works to allow the unit to return from Sweeping Advance.

Nope EL does not save the unit from SA, SA happens the unit is RFPAAC they are wiped out, killed ,destroyed ,El takes place after SA has concluded and all rules for it have been satisfied EL does not save them from SA as that has already taken place EL brings them back from death not SA .

SA is an action that causes death for the unit swept ,death is not SA so coming back from death is nothing to do with SA

SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

nosferatu1001 wrote:So for them the battle ISNT over?

Guess you keep ignoring the rules that disagree with you.

Great argument

As stated earlier, what you are referring to is fluff. And yes, for the unit that is swept and has to specific rule to stop the sweep as required by the SA rule; for them the battle is over. That does not mean you can't roll for EL. What you fail to grasp is that the restrictions placed by the SA rule on avoiding being swept are only concerned about stopping the sweep from occurring. EL doesn't do this.

It's not a matter of ignoring rules, it's a matter of certain lack of flexibility of thought on your part.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

Fluff. That bit is descriptive language used to add a sense of finality to the act of being caught in a SA (i.e., the destruction and RFPaaC).

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

EL would save the unit, therefore has to specifically state that it operates otherwise it does not do so, and rolling for EL is breaking a rule -which is cheating
EL would allow the unit to continue the battle, when for them the battle is over; meaning you have broken the SA rule - which is cheating

So there are two rules you have to overcome to roll for EL - now find the line where SA is specified in the EL rule, and you are good to go. Cant? Then youre not.

This is what it boils down to - EL *IS* a special rule that WOULD save the unit, therefore in order to operate it MUST specify that it works to allow the unit to return from Sweeping Advance.

Nope. EL does not 'save' or 'rescue' the unit that is swept. To do so would require a special rule, like ATSKNF, which would stop the sweep from happening. Retroactively applying the results of EL to say that is saves the unit is weak sauce at best.

-Yad

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

In general a model can take no further part in the battle and is dead when it's wounds are reduced to 0, see page 2 for how this affects their battle worthiness.
I think coming back from RFPaaC such as with EL or whatever st celestine has is a rule that says you can take futher part in a battle but only at that stage. You may be RFPaaC again.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

In general a model can take no further part in the battle and is dead when it's wounds are reduced to 0, see page 2 for how this affects their battle worthiness.
I think coming back from RFPaaC such as with EL or whatever st celestine has is a rule that says you can take futher part in a battle but only at that stage. You may be RFPaaC again.

Does EL, as a special rule, "specifically say otherwise"?

(Hint. the answer is no it does not specifically say otherwise).

If the intention of the Ever Living rule was for the model to die by SA (with the possibility of coming back) would it "specify" in the wording exactly like ATSKNF?
No, because if it did, then the effect would be that the unit doesn't die from SA and they stay in combat - like ATSKNF.

There is a certain amount of dishonesty in the argument for EL being required to "specify" like ATSKNF. Nobody is actually saying the rule should work like that.
We all agree SA kills the entire unit which is why you can't compare EL to ATSKNF. "Specifying" is a solution to allowing an action that nobody wants.

The only real dispute here is - timing. Sweeping advance sets a time limit to it's effect - at this stage.

If you think "at this stage" means the rest of the game turn then I see where the confusion is. As I understand the phrase "at this stage" to mean immediately during this Sweeping Advance action in this combat.

Since Sweeping Advance happens before consolidation. It's not the same "stage" of the game anymore as the "end of phase" when Ever Living rolls are made.

Again, can we leave 4th and 5th edition rules out of this? This forum is for Rules As Written. If you need to read a 4th or 5th edition rule (WBB) to try to grasp how this works in 6th then you will certainly get it wrong.

ND, why should it matter if we look at the 4th ed codex, when the part of the rule under dispute is written exactly the same?

snakel wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Yad wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

I'm certainly not agreeing that EL saves the unit from a successful SA roll. Nothing, aside form ATSKNF, can do that. As to your post back on page 8, I'm seeing and kind of revelation there. Simply follow the rules. One player rolls for SA and succeeds. The swept unit is RFPaaC. This in turn requires the 'cron player to place 1 or more EL tokens. SA is complete. Opponent consolidates. 'Cron player is then required to roll for EL and place (given the restrictions in the EL rule) the models that are returned to play.

If you're still stuck on the argument that I and like-minded folks have been making between pages 8 and 10 then I'd suggest you try again. Your points have been well discussed.

-Yad

Yad are you saying that you are allowed to place the EL token during SA? Yes or no, with a reason please, so I can fully understand what rules you are following.

Your argument re the token is as relevant as saying i can t place a flower on the board after a sweeping advance

The token is not a SPECIAL RULE

The token does not stop SA

The token is placed after you have performed a successful SA it in no way Stops SA from taking place !!!!

The token is placed after a model/unit is RFPAAC which cant happen if SA has not already happened .I.E not during an SA ,again you believe SA is ongoing show me as you all like to say anything to prove this while the pro side has shown RAW my means of after a successful SA you consolidate which is the next step or sub phase of the assault phase ,if SA had been stopped or not finished ,/concluded you would not by allowed by RAW to move on and consolidate

I have re posted this same thing because you have chosen to ignore it, and have yet to show me any rule or cite anything that states the Token is anything other than a marker to show at the end of the phase which Necrons are eligible to attempt to reanimate .

Actually snakel, I am trying to get you to say that you are using a special rule, while, and after the SA happened. When you place the token the SA has happened. You saying that you place the token afterwords is using a special rule "at this stage." So please show me where you are specifically allowed to place the token. By the way this arguement is in fact pertinent to the conversation, because as your side has taken to trying to discuss this as a timing issue, this is the same line of reasoning. You are not stopping the SA from happening, true, but you are using a special rule that is invoked by the SA, without permission to do so, and then trying to use that to bring back the model/unit. At the point of you removing the models from play you need to show that you can, specifically, place the token in regards to the result of SA.

The rules from the fourth edition BRB may be written the same. However, the rules for Everliving and We'll Be Back are different, difference starts with the name.


Sweeping Advances folks. I understand your argument, I would play my games the same way. The intentions of the rules are clear that the unit is not allowed to come back. However, on the account of a just plain bad attempt to get this point across, they left this small loophole. Being that the way that the rule is written is that no special rule may prevent the Sweeping Advance from occurring unless that rule is ATSKNF.

In this case, this special rule does not prevent your Sweeping Advance from occurring. It kills the unit and it stays dead for the duration of the rule. It isnt until the end of the phase that the model roles for its special rule to get back up.

Happyjew wrote:ND, why should it matter if we look at the 4th ed codex, when the part of the rule under dispute is written exactly the same?

WBB is not anything like Ever-Living. WBB - the models stayed on the table and the unit was considered still in play. Ever-Living the model is out of play and only a reminder counter remains.

In 4th and 5th SA did not say "Removed From Play as a Casualty". Now SA says RFPaaC. Do you remember half the argument against EL working after SA in 5th was because EL says "RFPaaC" (and RPF) but SA just said the unit was destroyed?

Now in 6th they added RFPaaC to SA which makes this clearer. SA says RFPaac and look at the Necron Codex - it says when a model with Ever Living is RFPaaC what you should do.

Because none of the rules are written exactly the same.

Nemesor Dave wrote:If the intention of the Ever Living rule was for the model to die by SA (with the possibility of coming back) would it "specify" in the wording exactly like ATSKNF?
No, because if it did, then the effect would be that the unit doesn't die from SA and they stay in combat - like ATSKNF.

No, this is a huge fallacy and a ridiculous claim. Space Marines don't die in a SA because the rule says they do not. The EL rule could very easily have said "The character can make an Ever-Living roll even if the unit is caught in a Sweeping Advance." In that rule it specifies that the roll can be made after a SA, and the unit still gets chopped to pieces in the event of a SA. But it doesn't specify that the unit can be saved in a SA, so they cannot.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:If the intention of the Ever Living rule was for the model to die by SA (with the possibility of coming back) would it "specify" in the wording exactly like ATSKNF?
No, because if it did, then the effect would be that the unit doesn't die from SA and they stay in combat - like ATSKNF.

No, this is a huge fallacy and a ridiculous claim. Space Marines don't die in a SA because the rule says they do not. The EL rule could very easily have said "The character can make an Ever-Living roll even if the unit is caught in a Sweeping Advance." In that rule it specifies that the roll can be made after a SA, and the unit still gets chopped to pieces in the event of a SA. But it doesn't specify that the unit can be saved in a SA, so they cannot.

EL doesn't need to explain every single rule interaction in the game. It tells you what to do when a model is Removed as a Casualty. Lucky for us we now know SA removes a model As a Casualty. The combat winning unit cannot continue to do Sweeping Advance after combat is over and they are 1" or more away from the model with EL. SA is an action done by a unit. SA does not make the unit God.

If SA was a permanent effect it would say "for them the battle is over" fullstop. It wouldn't say "at this stage". Here we are back at the timing argument.

It doesn't have to explain every single interaction in the game, just the ones that require it. Like SA which says it must specify it or it doesn't work.

So then you are saying that SA is not a permanent effect so I can place my unit back on the board after they fall to one? Good to know, I will keep that in mind.

Captain Antivas wrote:It doesn't have to explain every single interaction in the game, just the ones that require it. Like SA which says it must specify it or it doesn't work.

So then you are saying that SA is not a permanent effect so I can place my unit back on the board after they fall to one? Good to know, I will keep that in mind.

SA says that the target unit is going to die unless some special rule says they don't - like ASTKNF. EL doesn't stop this, hence my post saying it's irrelevant.

That's not why you can't put your models back. You can't put them back because they died. EL models have a special rule that allows them to come back after they died. Clear?

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So for them the battle ISNT over?

Guess you keep ignoring the rules that disagree with you.

Great argument

As stated earlier, what you are referring to is fluff.

No, it is a clear directive you MUST follow. You have decided it is fluff without any reason for doing so

You are also ignoring the CONTEXT of "at this stage" - "for them the battle is over" TELLS YOU the context quite, quite clearly, yet you STILL ignore it

Stop pretending rules are not rules because it destroys your argument, its very, very childish

Yad wrote: And yes, for the unit that is swept and has to specific rule to stop the sweep as required by the SA rule; for them the battle is over. That does not mean you can't roll for EL. What you fail to grasp is that the restrictions placed by the SA rule on avoiding being swept are only concerned about stopping the sweep from occurring. EL doesn't do this.

What you are failing to grasp is that this is not the context of the rule, at all. The context of the rule is that a swept unit cannot continue in hte battle UNLESS the rule specifically states otherwise

Yad wrote:It's not a matter of ignoring rules, it's a matter of certain lack of flexibility of thought on your part.

-Yad

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Actually snakel, I am trying to get you to say that you are using a special rule, while, and after the SA happened. When you place the token the SA has happened. You saying that you place the token afterwords is using a special rule "at this stage." So please show me where you are specifically allowed to place the token. By the way this arguement is in fact pertinent to the conversation, because as your side has taken to trying to discuss this as a timing issue, this is the same line of reasoning. You are not stopping the SA from happening, true, but you are using a special rule that is invoked by the SA, without permission to do so, and then trying to use that to bring back the model/unit. At the point of you removing the models from play you need to show that you can, specifically, place the token in regards to the result of SA.

The special rule is invoked by being RFPAAC not the action of SA .RFPAAC is the resulting effect of SA , failing a save is an action and losing your final wound and being RFPAAC are the result of that action ,SA and RFPAAC are not the same if they where every model RFPAAC would have to have been swept as well


Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Actually snakel, I am trying to get you to say that you are using a special rule, while, and after the SA happened. When you place the token the SA has happened. You saying that you place the token afterwords is using a special rule "at this stage." So please show me where you are specifically allowed to place the token. By the way this arguement is in fact pertinent to the conversation, because as your side has taken to trying to discuss this as a timing issue, this is the same line of reasoning. You are not stopping the SA from happening, true, but you are using a special rule that is invoked by the SA, without permission to do so, and then trying to use that to bring back the model/unit. At the point of you removing the models from play you need to show that you can, specifically, place the token in regards to the result of SA.

The special rule is invoked by being RFPAAC not the action of SA .RFPAAC is the resulting effect of SA , failing a save is an action and losing your final wound and being RFPAAC are the result of that action ,SA and RFPAAC are not the same if they where every model RFPAAC would have to have been swept as well


Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

.



So the placement of the token for EL, is not a part of the special rule???? Funny because you cannot roll for EL/RP without the token, and EL/RP tell you that when a model is Rfpaac to place a token. SO, this is not part of the EL/RP rules? Funny, then what has everyone been saying about placing tokens and what not.

In SA, you RFPAAC, at this stage, single point in time, you cannot save the unit with a save or a special rule. You are attempting to place a token using a special rule without permission. For them the battle is over, no matter how many times you wish it to be fluff is not fluff. Here is the fluff from the surronding sentences. "We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwisesent packing so demoralised that they won't return: it's members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding." That right there is fluff, but coincidentily it also tells you what the writers were thinking and how they want you to play it.....

Addtionally, I am not saying SA and RFPAAC is the same thing, that is what you think I am saying, when in fact RFPAAC is a part of the SA rule. Futhermore, if the action of SA is not to RFPAAC a unit that is in CC then what is the action of SA????

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

Oh dear.

snakel wrote:I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

Wrong. You have been proven wrong on every count.

snakel wrote:You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

Wrong, as you already gave "at this stage" can have a number of meaning, but IN CONTEXt only has a single one - no matter what you try to lie about otherwise. Apparently as far as you are concerned "battle" is equivalent to "just this part of the fight sub phase, honest!!!!!!"

snakel wrote:You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

It saves them from being unable to take any further part in the battle, which is a condition of Sweeping Advance. Odd that you dont think that. Its very very clearly written.

snakel wrote:You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

Sorry, not a clue what youre attempting to claim there. I'd suggest taking a deep breath, calming down and trying again, as youre not making any sense there. When youre claiming other people are saying things quotes are helpful as well.

snakel wrote:So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU

Yep, you still havent managed a single rule.

snakel wrote:
Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

How are you placing the token, APART from using the special rule? Remember your game basics - the game is permissive. So where are you gaining permission from, APART FROM a special rule?

I'm gonna love how you try to wiggle out of admitting you have used a special rule this time.

snakel wrote:Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

Incorrect. I suggesty ou havent actually read EL or RP, otherwise you would no the above is patently false and another lie.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

So the placement of the token for EL, is not a part of the special rule???? Funny because you cannot roll for EL/RP without the token, and EL/RP tell you that when a model is Rfpaac to place a token. SO, this is not part of the EL/RP rules? Funny, then what has everyone been saying about placing tokens and what not.

In SA, you RFPAAC, at this stage, single point in time, you cannot save the unit with a save or a special rule. You are attempting to place a token using a special rule without permission. For them the battle is over, no matter how many times you wish it to be fluff is not fluff. Here is the fluff from the surronding sentences. "We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwisesent packing so demoralised that they won't return: it's members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding." That right there is fluff, but coincidentily it also tells you what the writers were thinking and how they want you to play it.....

What part of SA prevents you from putting down a token? Not a word. Putting down a token as required by EL is not saving or rescuing a unit.

"For them the battle is over". If this isn't fluff, show me the battle. I only see some models on a table. Necrons who are dead, wounded, ripped apart, and demoralized love coming back to battle. Especially ones like Crypteks (who have the Ever Living rule). It's fluff.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

Oh dear.

snakel wrote:I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

Wrong. You have been proven wrong on every count.

snakel wrote:You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

Wrong, as you already gave "at this stage" can have a number of meaning, but IN CONTEXt only has a single one - no matter what you try to lie about otherwise. Apparently as far as you are concerned "battle" is equivalent to "just this part of the fight sub phase, honest!!!!!!"

snakel wrote:You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

It saves them from being unable to take any further part in the battle, which is a condition of Sweeping Advance. Odd that you dont think that. Its very very clearly written.

snakel wrote:You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

Sorry, not a clue what youre attempting to claim there. I'd suggest taking a deep breath, calming down and trying again, as youre not making any sense there. When youre claiming other people are saying things quotes are helpful as well.

snakel wrote:So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU

Yep, you still havent managed a single rule.

snakel wrote:
Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

How are you placing the token, APART from using the special rule? Remember your game basics - the game is permissive. So where are you gaining permission from, APART FROM a special rule?

I'm gonna love how you try to wiggle out of admitting you have used a special rule this time.

snakel wrote:Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

Incorrect. I suggesty ou havent actually read EL or RP, otherwise you would no the above is patently false and another lie.

No need to wriggle out of anything its plain you cant see RAW or comprehend what at this stage means or that a token is not a special rule but a marker to keep track of models RFPAAC ,to allow a special rule to be used at a later stage

and if RFPAAC is part of SA then any time i use RFPAAC In the game i have performed a SA

So any model losing its final wound that is RFPAAC has been swept ?

And thank you for the insults,(calling me a liar )have you lost the argument now?

SA doesn't prevent you from taking further part in a battle. It removes you as RFPAAC. If it said RFP and cannot return that would be a different story.

snakel, I may have lost the argument, but you my friend, have lost the GAME.

Happyjew wrote:snakel, I may have lost the argument, but you my friend, have lost the GAME.

I am sorry i didn't know you and nosferatu1001 were the same person as my reply and comment re losing the argument ,was aimed at his early statement to the same effect

but curiosity dictates i must ask what game have i lost ,i don't play till later tonight ,so unless you know something i don't know

Snakel - so, really, you are claiming that Placing the EL token is NOT part of the EL / RP special rule?

Really?

Hint. Second sentence of page 29, under R.P.

The special rule RP

where it says you place tokens

The special rule, where it says you place tokens.

So, presumably you cannot now wriggle even more, and must admit that you DO use a special rule to place the tokens?

ND - the game you are playing is referred to as the battle. You know the phrase battle brothers? They use it a lot.

Well I think this thread has pretty much gone nowhere. It should probably die until a FAQ comes out. I would check with your local TO before you play first though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Snakel - so, really, you are claiming that Placing the EL token is NOT part of the EL / RP special rule?

Really?

Hint. Second sentence of page 29, under R.P., says you are lying, or you are simply unable to comprehend that everything under the R.P / E.L. headings are part of the Special Rules.

Which is it?

ND - the game you are playing is referred to as the battle. You know the phrase battle brothers? They use it a lot.

Where does SA prevent you from placing a counter?

1. SA removes model with EL as a casualty.
2. EL rule says you must place a counter.

Where is the conflict? This is why I can hardly be bothered to follow anything you've written this entire thread. You mention 4th and 5th edition rules over and over again. Now dragging Snakel through a whole discussion about placing the counter which he'll try to defend when you know VERY WELL that SA doesn't stop you from placing an EL counter.

In fact you claim the proper way to play according to your interpretation of the rules is
1. SA kills the unit - remove the unit.
2. Model was RFPaaC so place a counter.
3. Roll for EL
5. Regardless of success, pick up your EL token and model.

Here you are quite content to have a whole discussion about placing the EL counter without any justification as to why you would say you can't place a counter.

No special rule can save the unit

EL is a special rule
EL allows you to place a token that, if rolled for, would save the unit. Note, before you get all excited again, this is not "S"ave with a capital S, butthe colloquial use of it by GW.

You can place the counter, but have no permisison to place the model as this breaks SA.

AS you know full well, but apparently keep ignoring.

Carry on, you have yet to post anything approaching rules.

I read it as needing a special rule to save you from being destroyed, not from sweeping advance. Which necrons have. It says they are destroyed unless a special rule prevents it. I assume the special rule is referencing the previous line stating they are destroyed, not the name of the rule itself. I feel that because ATSKNF specifically references SA that it has become a requirement to mention SA in some peoples minds where no where in the rule does it say it must protect you from SA, just from destroyed.

It says you need a special rule specifying that it works against Sweeping Advance. Context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It says you need a special rule specifying that it works against Sweeping Advance. Context.

Correct and EL does not work against SA we have all agreed on this since it does not stop the SA from taking place

I wont bother defending the token placement since there is no point even if the BRB writers and Matt ward came out publicly to say it works some people would argue with them that it does not .

The people i play and the people they play use the rule as i do and believe that is RAW ,every other forum i have used sees it the same as me, so what a few people on Dakka think is irrelevant and and frankly just funny .

I believe i am right and since the majority of people and the people i play agree with me that's all that matters ,

retort all you want after reading everything some have posted it will only serve to make me smile

P.S to save you time i will post a good retort for you

"The majority of people and the people you play using the rule as you see it does not make it right or RAW " feel free to insert your name with this retort

It doesn't rescue the unit from Sweeping Advancw, it just returns the unit to the board after a Sweeping Advance has destroyed them to the point that they can't be rescued unless otherwise specified.

Is that essentially it?

... How is that not rescuing the unit again?

rigeld2 wrote:It doesn't rescue the unit from Sweeping Advancw, it just returns the unit to the board after a Sweeping Advance has destroyed them to the point that they can't be rescued unless otherwise specified.

Is that essentially it?

... How is that not rescuing the unit again?

I'll explain. Using a diagram.

1. Unit of marines (M) is in combat with some necrons (N) and a cryptek with EL (C).
BRB P. 26 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make Sweeping Advance." Notice the victors are the ones making the SA.
So the Necrons lose combat and fail morale, and flee. Marines win the rolloff.

MMM
NCN

2. BRB p. 27 "The destroyed unit is
immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise
specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit
at this stage; for them the battle is over."
Necron Codex p.29 "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty,
do not add a RP counter to its unit. Instead place a EL counter where the model was removed from play."
Nobody is getting saved or rescued here. If you don't place a counter (E) YOU HAVE BROKEN A RULE.

MMM
E

3. BRB p. 27 "At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate."
Is the victor making Sweeping Advance at this time? NO. Marines are consolidating at the end of combat.

MMM E

4. Necron Codex p. 29 "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter just as you would
for a reanimation counter."
Roll and place the cryptek (C) with EL within 3" of the counter and more than 1" from any enemies.

MMM C

Are these marines still making a Sweeping Advance right now? NO.
Is there any rule that lets you kill the Crypek now? NO.
Are any marines close enough to harm the cryptek? NO.
The RAW are quite clear now.

Snakel- so, you concede yiu were using a special ruke to place the token?

Or are you just ignoring that you were, again wrong on this?

Great fallacy again, btw, appeal to ajthority and "na na im right i cant hear you" . Silly me, I thought we were discussing rules....

Ignored as, frankly irrelevant

ND - again with the selective highlighting. Apparently "at this stage", meaning "from this point on" using that marvellous tool of the English language called context, and "for them the battle is over" can just be ignored ?

The raw is very,very clear - you're just still choosing to ignore it

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - again with the selective highlighting. Apparently "at this stage", meaning "from this point on" using that marvellous tool of the English language called context, and "for them the battle is over" can just be ignored ?

The raw is very,very clear - you're just still choosing to ignore it

We could say the same for you. Rescue a unit requires preventing the SA, does EL prevent SA? No it allows it to fully resolve.
You have hung your hat on an obtuse reading of that line of text, it is your opinion not fact. Stop acting as if you have the monopoly on 40k wisdom.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - again with the selective highlighting. Apparently "at this stage", meaning "from this point on" using that marvellous tool of the English language called context, and "for them the battle is over" can just be ignored ?

The raw is very,very clear - you're just still choosing to ignore it

So you're down to the last leg of your argument.

I have demonstrated clearly that SA is an action performed by the victors (BRB p.26). The unit is "making a Sweeping Advance". When the winning unit has killed all the Necrons SA is done, there's nothing left to do. Are they Sweeping Advancing the air now?

Then there is Consolidation. I don't see a section after Consolidation that says "Second Sweeping Advance" do you?

Where is the proof that the Victorious unit is still "making a Sweeping Advance" after combat? Nice try, but you won't find it. It's ridiculous to say that the unit is still "making a Sweeping Advance" after combat resolution. If you can make a Sweeping Advance after Consolidation, why not keep making Consolidations too?

I have an idea, why don't you tell me again all about "no special rule can save you at this stage" and tell me exactly which unit is still "making a Sweeping Advance" at the end of the phase.

No, just tired of repeating every other part of the argument you keep ignoring. Its quicker to point out your fallacies as you post them.

You don't have any argument that negates the persistent "for them the battle is over" directive, and the special rule doesn't have the necessary language to support your idea. Continue with your argument that leaves out rules if you wish, it isn't exactly convincing as it stands however, so a different tack, one showing you aren't ignoring rules, could be a good idea

Liturgies - obtuse to use the correct, no choice in the matter context of two phrases? Or is it obtuse to point out when one posters entire argumen, one of timing, has been moot for 9 YEARS? surely not as obtuse as consistently refusing to acknowledge a very straight forward and simple fact, instead hiding behind "wah, 4th ed!" While ignoring the fact the rule has not altered one jot in those editions?

nosferatu1001 wrote: Or is it obtuse to point out when one posters entire argumen, one of timing, has been moot for 9 YEARS? surely not as obtuse as consistently refusing to acknowledge a very straight forward and simple fact, instead hiding behind "wah, 4th ed!" While ignoring the fact the rule has not altered one jot in those editions?

I don't believe you have a 6th edition rulebook or current Necron Codex. You keep stating the rule has not changed a single letter so you must be still reading your 4th edition books. Now it all makes sense.

So you've been playing 6th edition for 9 years. ??? Keep up the good work.

The rule has been altered since 5th ed.
Page 2 wounds. Acording to that you cannot come back from having 0 wounds. Oh wait codex>brb.
You refuse the logic of SA is only limiting in that a rule must specify to prevent the execution of that stage. ATSKNF fulfills that example but EL does not seek to prevent the destruction of the unit. At that stage the battle is over for them. Luckily they have a more specific rule.

I am sorry that I don't buy the analogy of an outdated rule from pre 3.5 3rd ed's interaction with 4th and 5th ed rules. What I do look at is the interaction of a late 5th ed codex with the 6th ed rules. I find that your argument that there is no order of operations in 40k laughable as it goes into detail in what must follow what in most incidences.

Ah so now you speak fact, thank god. This subjective reading thing has been the bane of literature for years. What did Joyce really mean during the stream of consciousness in Ulysses?

Nemesor Dave wrote:
3. BRB p. 27 "At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate."
Is the victor making Sweeping Advance at this time? NO. Marines are consolidating at the end of combat.

MMM E

So Sweeping Advance doesn't have a lasting effect? Despite the fact that "at this stage" means "from here on"?

That's what I don't understand. The definitions provided by someone on your side support me. And you are either ignoring them or deciding they're wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
3. BRB p. 27 "At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate."
Is the victor making Sweeping Advance at this time? NO. Marines are consolidating at the end of combat.

MMM E

So Sweeping Advance doesn't have a lasting effect? Despite the fact that "at this stage" means "from here on"?

That's what I don't understand. The definitions provided by someone on your side support me. And you are either ignoring them or deciding they're wrong.

Despite the fact that "at this stage" means "from here".

..until the end of the battle, because "for them, the battle is over"

Thats RAI. RAW the rule reads until Sweeping Advances is finished. EL doesnt let the model stop the Sweeping Advance, nor does it allow them to get back up during the Sweeping Advance. As Everliving states you roll for the token at the end of the phase, which is after Sweeping Advances finished.

Do note, this does prevent St Celstiane(sp) from coming back due to her special rule worded as happening during the Sweeping Advance.

As far as the last sentence goes, it boils down to the fact that its a semi-colon. Referencing the topic preceding it and that the sentence after the semi-colon is in conjunction with that sentence. Had that been a colon instead of a semi-colon, the against EL crowd be correct. However, with the semi-colon in place, it reads as "Nothing may save these models/unit, for the duration of this rule, they may not come back with anything bar ATSKNF as long as this rule is ongoing until its conclusion."

Xzerios wrote:Thats RAI. RAW the rule reads until Sweeping Advances is finished. EL doesnt let the model stop the Sweeping Advance, nor does it allow them to get back up during the Sweeping Advance. As Everliving states you roll for the token at the end of the phase, which is after Sweeping Advances finished.

Do note, this does prevent St Celstiane(sp) from coming back due to her special rule worded as happening during the Sweeping Advance.

Wait, what? EL models can come back while St. C. cannot?

Seriously, spell that one out for me.

Its due in part to the timing of Divine Interventions wording, and the timing of Ever Livings wording. Divine Intervention comes back when its removed as a casualty while Ever Living comes back at the end of the phase.

As we all can read, no special rule may save them, but due to the wording of Sweeping Advances, the special rule that saves them may not work while the effect is ongoing until you finish up with Sweeping Advances. Since Divine Intervention states that when you remove her as a casualty, you roll and if you succeeded, place her back; Yet the wording of Sweeping Advances specifically states that thats special rule may not be used while its ongoing. Ever Living pops the model back up at the end of the phase, which by now of course, Sweeping Advances rule has finished of its entirety.

I don't have the SoB codex - Miraculous Intervention brings her back at the beginning of your turn, right?

edit:

Xzerios wrote:Ever Living pops the model back up at the end of the phase, which by now of course, Sweeping Advances rule has finished of its entirety.

You keep saying that like it matters.
Yes, the rule is done resolving.
Yes, rules can have lasting effects.
No, you haven't shown that SA does not have a lasting effect.

Yes, MI is at the start of the SoB turn. Same as Thawn, Yarrick

As above. No RAI needed when the rule specifies the duration of the inabiltiy to take further part in the battle

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, MI is at the start of the SoB turn. Same as Thawn, Yarrick

So the following statement is factually incorrect? Just clarifying.

Xzerios wrote:Its due in part to the timing of Divine Interventions wording, and the timing of Ever Livings wording. Divine Intervention comes back when its removed as a casualty while Ever Living comes back at the end of the phase.

Additionally, MI was FAQ'd that St. C could come back from things that remove from play.

Eh, pulling my hair out trying to find the August/Sept WD to refrence. :d

rigeld2 wrote:You keep saying that like it matters.
Yes, the rule is done resolving.
Yes, rules can have lasting effects.
No, you haven't shown that SA does not have a lasting effect.

Oh sir, I dont have to show that has a lasting effect. Its your side that does. The rule is finished after you consolidate. RAW, the unit cant come back for the duration of the rule; There is no mention in the effects of the rule that it goes on until the end of the game, merely until the end of the rule.

Xzerios wrote:Eh, pulling my hair out trying to find the August/Sept WD to refrence. :d

rigeld2 wrote:You keep saying that like it matters.
Yes, the rule is done resolving.
Yes, rules can have lasting effects.
No, you haven't shown that SA does not have a lasting effect.

Oh sir, I dont have to show that has a lasting effect. Its your side that does. The rule is finished after you consolidate. RAW, the unit cant come back for the duration of the rule; There is no mention in the effects of the rule that it goes on until the end of the game, merely until the end of the rule.

There is a mention of a lasting effect - "at this stage". There is no mention on the ending of that lasting effect.

rigeld2 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:Eh, pulling my hair out trying to find the August/Sept WD to refrence. :d

rigeld2 wrote:You keep saying that like it matters.
Yes, the rule is done resolving.
Yes, rules can have lasting effects.
No, you haven't shown that SA does not have a lasting effect.

Oh sir, I dont have to show that has a lasting effect. Its your side that does. The rule is finished after you consolidate. RAW, the unit cant come back for the duration of the rule; There is no mention in the effects of the rule that it goes on until the end of the game, merely until the end of the rule.

There is a mention of a lasting effect - "at this stage". There is no mention on the ending of that lasting effect.

And you are ignoring the dictionary definition as i posted earlier .



At this stage, to mean at this point in an event .
At this stage, to mean right now
At this stage, to me during this part of the event or action
At this stage ,not meaning from now until i say so .

Stage or stages is an abstract object often associated with either theater and scene or point of progress. from the definition in the oxford English dictionary

Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” .from several online dictionary's

Your RAI for "At this stage" is to read as "From here on".
My RAI for "At this stage" reads as "Up to this point".

Ambiguous word is ambiguous.

Luckily however, we are not going RAI, the forum here is RAW. Let us break down the word in its current contextual meaning within this sentence.

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage;

The underlined words of the sentence all imply that the context is present-tense. Despite the fact that stage in its normal form can be used all three tenses; Past, Present, and Future, in this case, the sentence implies it is present tense.

You missed a part in your quote Xzerios. Conviently enough you are ignoring

for them the battle is over

snakel wrote:
And you are ignoring the dictionary definition as i posted earlier .

At this stage, to mean at this point in an event .
At this stage, to mean right now
At this stage, to me during this part of the event or action
At this stage ,not meaning from now until i say so .

Stage or stages is an abstract object often associated with either theater and scene or point of progress. from the definition in the oxford English dictionary

Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” .from several online dictionary's

No, actually - thanks for reposting what I am referring to.
At that step (IE after being removed) they cannot be rescued.
There isn't a next step defined.
You're assuming that it ends when the rule is finished resolving.
I don't see any reason to assume that especially with the fluff indicating the intent to mean for the battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xzerios wrote:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage;

The underlined words of the sentence all imply that the context is present-tense. Despite the fact that stage in its normal form can be used all three tenses; Past, Present, and Future, in this case, the sentence implies it is present tense.

Despite the definitions that have been posted?

You're singling out words in a phrase.

Even doing that - yes, in the present stage they cannot be rescued. Find where the next stage begins, and where the state changes during that next stage.
You're assuming that the next stage begins when the SA finishes resolving. You're also assuming that they can be rescued at that stage.
Neither is asserted in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:
And you are ignoring the dictionary definition as i posted earlier .

At this stage, to mean at this point in an event .
At this stage, to mean right now
At this stage, to me during this part of the event or action
At this stage ,not meaning from now until i say so .

Stage or stages is an abstract object often associated with either theater and scene or point of progress. from the definition in the oxford English dictionary

Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” .from several online dictionary's

No, actually - thanks for reposting what I am referring to.
At that step (IE after being removed) they cannot be rescued.
There isn't a next step defined.
You're assuming that it ends when the rule is finished resolving.
I don't see any reason to assume that especially with the fluff indicating the intent to mean for the battle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xzerios wrote:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage;

The underlined words of the sentence all imply that the context is present-tense. Despite the fact that stage in its normal form can be used all three tenses; Past, Present, and Future, in this case, the sentence implies it is present tense.

Despite the definitions that have been posted?

You're singling out words in a phrase.

Even doing that - yes, in the present stage they cannot be rescued. Find where the next stage begins, and where the state changes during that next stage.
You're assuming that the next stage begins when the SA finishes resolving. You're also assuming that they can be rescued at that stage.
Neither is asserted in the rules.

Lol very good i like how you change At this stage to at that stage and then make up your own interpretation of the English language

It sadly does not say when the next stage begins within the BRB. This is the only mention of a 'stage' within the standard rules.

I know that there is not a next stage in the game. You need to show us where its an on going event at this point. Ill save some time here and point again to the fact that this is present tense. Its not allowed to be a future tense stage due to the writing of the rule. With that in mind, read the rule once more.

Unit has been swept.
Token goes down.
Check, is any special rule saving the unit at this stage?
Yes: disallowed. No: continue with rule.
End of Combat Pile-in
Consolidation
End Fight Sub-phase
Finish other combats or ongoing combats.
End phase; Check for Ever Living Token.

Present tense does not allow you to interject a 'Check: is any special rule saving the unit at this stage?' at this point in the game as it happened back within the rules of the Sweeping Advance which is now over.

snakel wrote:Lol very good i like how you change At this stage to at that stage and then make up your own interpretation of the English language

I have no idea what you're referring to. I haven't "changed" anything and I'm not making anything up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xzerios wrote:It sadly does not say when the next stage begins within the BRB. This is the only mention of a 'stage' within the standard rules.

I know that there is not a next stage in the game. You need to show us where its an on going event at this point. Ill save some time here and point again to the fact that this is present tense. Its not allowed to be a future tense stage due to the writing of the rule. With that in mind, read the rule once more.

Present tense does not allow you to interject a 'Check: is any special rule saving the unit at this stage?' at this point in the game as it happened back within the rules of the Sweeping Advance which is now over.

Present tense changes from the stage where there is a way to rescue the unit to a stage where there is no way to rescue the unit. Yes/No
There is no defined end to that stage. Yes/No

You're artificially ending the stage at the end of the SA resolution.

I put my phone down. Present tense, right?
After I'm done putting my phone down, is it now in my hand?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
3. BRB p. 27 "At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate."
Is the victor making Sweeping Advance at this time? NO. Marines are consolidating at the end of combat.

MMM E

So Sweeping Advance doesn't have a lasting effect? Despite the fact that "at this stage" means "from here on"?

That's what I don't understand. The definitions provided by someone on your side support me. And you are either ignoring them or deciding they're wrong.

No, "at this stage" does not mean "from here on". Bad English comprehension my friend. "At this stage" means now, during this step in a chain of steps. It means if you were to divide a set of tasks into stages, the even occurs for one stage.

But don't just take my word for it. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+this+stage The more you know...

A Sweeping Advance is made by the victor. You are never given permission to keep performing a Sweeping Advance during Consolidation or afterwards.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
3. BRB p. 27 "At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate."
Is the victor making Sweeping Advance at this time? NO. Marines are consolidating at the end of combat.

MMM E

So Sweeping Advance doesn't have a lasting effect? Despite the fact that "at this stage" means "from here on"?

That's what I don't understand. The definitions provided by someone on your side support me. And you are either ignoring them or deciding they're wrong.

No, "at this stage" does not mean "from here on". Bad English comprehension my friend. "At this stage" means now, during this step in a chain of steps. It means if you were to divide a set of tasks into stages, the even occurs for one stage.

But don't just take my word for it. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+this+stage The more you know...

A Sweeping Advance is made by the victor. You are never given permission to keep performing a Sweeping Advance during Consolidation or afterwards.

Sigh.

Seriously, yes it means "during this step in a chain of steps". Find permission to move to the next step in the chain. Find permission to change the "cannot be rescued" to "can be rescued" once you're in the fanciful next step.
It's like no one reads my posts. Bad English comprehension indeed.

rigeld2 wrote:Present tense changes from the stage where there is a way to rescue the unit to a stage where there is no way to rescue the unit. Yes/No

I dont see where the sentence changed to read this way. However again your not understanding that the present tense of "stage" is to mean "Up to this point". It doesnt change and its context cant be changed to future-tense due to the words written with in the sentence.

rigeld2 wrote:There is no defined end to that stage. Yes/No

"Up to this point". Definition for this includes at this point in time, right now, this very moment, chronologically set now. This in itself is the end of the word "Stage" in its current 'tense' form.

rigeld2 wrote:After I'm done putting my phone down, is it now in my hand?

This is poor English, it should read; "After I've put down my phone, is it now in my hand?"

Indeed Rigeld, noone has managed to read your posts. Snakel has entirely forgotten that the special rule is used to place tokens, and is now hoping it will be forgotten instead...

Xzerios wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Present tense changes from the stage where there is a way to rescue the unit to a stage where there is no way to rescue the unit. Yes/No

I dont see where the sentence changed to read this way. However again your not understanding that the present tense of "stage" is to mean "Up to this point". It doesnt change and its context cant be changed to future-tense due to the words written with in the sentence.

Have you read the definitions and examples your peers have posted?
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+this+stage " At this stage, we are better off not calling the doctor"
That's not "this exact moment in time and will never be another moment" or "up to this point" it's "unless something changes"
http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/at-this-stage "I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later"
Again, not a single point in time, but covers a period of time (until "later").

rigeld2 wrote:There is no defined end to that stage. Yes/No

"Up to this point". Definition for this includes at this point in time, right now, this very moment, chronologically set now. This in itself is the end of the word "Stage" in its current 'tense' form.

You're still treating stage like a single word.

rigeld2 wrote:After I'm done putting my phone down, is it now in my hand?

This is poor English, it should read; "After I've put down my phone, is it now in my hand?"

Fair enough - the question stands.

Id recommend you check those links good sir.
They agree with me.

Its up to this point that the context of the word stage will be concluded in this argument.

Xzerios wrote:Id recommend you check those links good sir.
They agree with me.

Its up to this point that the context of the word stage will be concluded in this argument.

... I copy/pasted how they agree with me. Seriously, the words in quotes next to the link appear in the link.

Are you saying those words don't support me?

at this stage (of the game)
Fig. at the current point in some event or situation; currently.

From the first link, bolded and non colored sentence is what Ive copied.

Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” [Early 1800s]

Second link.

Whats the point at which they are all referencing?
Now.
At. This. Point.

Again, the intended purpose of the rule is to prevent the unit/model from coming back ever. However due to the way its written, they may not get back up after they are removed as casualties as Sweeping Advances calls for at this point, they may not get back up. Afterwards is good to go.

Poorly written rule is poorly written. :|

nosferatu1001 wrote:Indeed Rigeld, noone has managed to read your posts. Snakel has entirely forgotten that the special rule is used to place tokens, and is now hoping it will be forgotten instead...

Lol thanks for making me Laugh and just to make it clear even if the token was a special rule(i feel no need to prove to you at all that it is not) which part of it saves the unit from SA and being RFPAAC?

At this stage, a point in time a ,step or phase ,SA is at the end of the combat a sub phase of the assault phase(you could even make an argument SA is a sub phase all of its own ) there for consolidation is another sub phase .

So to be clear" at this stage blah blah you know the rest " stage = combat sub phase this ends ,then we are in the next stage of combat resolution consolidation, now when all other combats, sub phases, stages are done, example " at this stage we will do the Assault marine /wraith combat and we can move on to the overlord /Calgar combat when we have resolved this one" we then move on to the end of the assault phase and resolve any RP/EL counters as per the codex

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Indeed Rigeld, noone has managed to read your posts. Snakel has entirely forgotten that the special rule is used to place tokens, and is now hoping it will be forgotten instead...

Lol thanks for making me Laugh and just to make it clear even if the token was a special rule(i feel no need to prove to you at all that it is not) which part of it saves the unit from SA and being RFPAAC?

Lol, youre just too funny. Apparently having proven that placement of the token requires a special rule (shock, its RP / EL - i even gave you the page numbers, just to make sure you couldnt keep wiggling and pretending otherwise) you are still convinced it ISNT a special rule

Impressive denial of facts.

snakel wrote:At this stage, a point in time a ,step or phase ,

...which isnt what "at this stage" means in context. Something you are struggling to comprehend it seems.

snakel wrote:SA is at the end of the combat a sub phase of the assault phase(you could even make an argument SA is a sub phase all of its own )

No, you couldnt. The subphases are defined.

snakel wrote:there for consolidation is another sub phase .

More made up rules. Form ignorign to just making gak up now.

snakel wrote:So to be clear" at this stage blah blah you know the rest " stage = combat sub phase this ends ,then we are in the next stage of combat resolution consolidation, now when all other combats, sub phases, stages are done, example " at this stage we will do the Assault marine /wraith combat and we can move on to the overlord /Calgar combat when we have resolved this one" we then move on to the end of the assault phase and resolve any RP/EL counters as per the codex

Or, you follow the actual rules, and for any unit tha twishes to take further part in the battle, you have to have a special rule that SPECIFIES that they may do so.

Out of interest NOS and Rigeld is this both a RAW and HIWPI arguement?

Yes. It is how I have played this all round the UK, as it is both the actual rules AND RAI.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. It is how I have played this all round the UK, as it is both the actual rules AND RAI.

In your opinion.

Given you havent managed to formulate an argument that holds up to any level of scrutiny, its more than that currently.

I'm sorry, your reading of the rules is incredibly narrow and misuse a synonym of now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also your scrutiny consisted of a sidestep worthy of American political candidates.

HEY! Don't mock my candidates. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would never sidestep.

Happyjew wrote:HEY! Don't mock my candidates. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would never sidestep.

Herman Cain FTW!

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:there for consolidation is another sub phase .

More made up rules. Form ignorign to just making gak up now.

Well if you don't understand that there are phases/steps/stages to the CC process, I can understand why your getting the rules wrong.

liturgies of blood wrote:Out of interest NOS and Rigeld is this both a RAW and HIWPI arguement?

It's RAW and I play it however my local TOs rule it.
At first it was your way. After a few months they changed their mind (without direct influence from me - they read Dakka but I'm not sure they frequent YMDC and even if they do I'm not sure they know my username) and only allow models that fall before the sweep to stand back up.

If the person I'm playing doesn't like that ruling (outside a tournament) we'll dice off and I'll play however it comes up. I play to have fun despite what I've been accused of many times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xzerios wrote:

at this stage (of the game)
Fig. at the current point in some event or situation; currently.

From the first link, bolded and non colored sentence is what Ive copied.

Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” [Early 1800s]

Second link.

Whats the point at which they are all referencing?
Now.
At. This. Point.

It'd be great if you actually read my post.

rigeld2 wrote:That's not "this exact moment in time and will never be another moment" or "up to this point" it's "unless something changes"

Every one of those phrases is saying "not this second, maybe later". Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Again, the intended purpose of the rule is to prevent the unit/model from coming back ever. However due to the way its written, they may not get back up after they are removed as casualties as Sweeping Advances calls for at this point, they may not get back up. Afterwards is good to go.

So you've found where the rules move in to the next stage? And where they lift the restriction put in place? Could you share where the information was found?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you've found where the rules move in to the next stage? And where they lift the restriction put in place? Could you share where the information was found?

And you have found where they don't please share your information


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Indeed Rigeld, noone has managed to read your posts. Snakel has entirely forgotten that the special rule is used to place tokens, and is now hoping it will be forgotten instead...

Lol thanks for making me Laugh and just to make it clear even if the token was a special rule(i feel no need to prove to you at all that it is not) which part of it saves the unit from SA and being RFPAAC?

Lol, youre just too funny. Apparently having proven that placement of the token requires a special rule (shock, its RP / EL - i even gave you the page numbers, just to make sure you couldnt keep wiggling and pretending otherwise) you are still convinced it ISNT a special rule

Impressive denial of facts.

so here you show your assumptions that not feeling any need to argue with you over this point you assume you have won the token argument ,and i can only assume in you excitement you forgot to answer the part of where SA and RFPAAC are stopped by a token.

The tour De France has stages clearly marked by a start and finish 40k has stages but users the term Phase , the use of at this stage refers to this point in the process and that Means SA once all aspects of SA have been resolved it is over and to say it not is like saying once they cross the finish line in this stage the stage is still on going ????






Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA is at the end of the combat a sub phase of the assault phase(you could even make an argument SA is a sub phase all of its own )

No, you couldnt. The subphases are defined.

Erm that fact you have argued against this proves that you can argue it and of course the sub phases are defined, which points to SA ending not carrying on to the end of the phase

snakel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you've found where the rules move in to the next stage? And where they lift the restriction put in place? Could you share where the information was found?

And you have found where they don't please share your information

Wrong way round - you need to find proof that it has moved on, not the other way around. Otherwise "at this stage" continues

Thats just basic logic, especially when arguing rules in a permissive rule set. Basic

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Indeed Rigeld, noone has managed to read your posts. Snakel has entirely forgotten that the special rule is used to place tokens, and is now hoping it will be forgotten instead...

Lol thanks for making me Laugh and just to make it clear even if the token was a special rule(i feel no need to prove to you at all that it is not) which part of it saves the unit from SA and being RFPAAC?

Lol, youre just too funny. Apparently having proven that placement of the token requires a special rule (shock, its RP / EL - i even gave you the page numbers, just to make sure you couldnt keep wiggling and pretending otherwise) you are still convinced it ISNT a special rule

Impressive denial of facts.

so here you show your assumptions that not feeling any need to argue with you over this point you assume you have won the token argument ,and i can only assume in you excitement you forgot to answer the part of where SA and RFPAAC are stopped by a token.

Not excitement. Laughter.

I have proven that placing the token requires a special rule, and gave page and paragraph

You provided..... nothing except your assertion otherwise.

So yes, I have "won" the argument that placement of the token requires a special rule.

Given you cannot even accept that basic fact arguing becomes pointless - denial of reality only goes so far

snakel wrote:The tour De France has stages clearly marked by a start and finish 40k has stages but users the term Phase , the use of at this stage refers to this point in the process and that Means SA once all aspects of SA have been resolved it is over and to say it not is like saying once they cross the finish line in this stage the stage is still on going ????

So you are saying stage == phase? Brilliant. So, at this "phase" (Assault) you need a special rule that specifically allows you to save or rescue the unit in order to do so. Otherwise "for them, the battle is over"

Apparently you dont even understand your own argument, as you keep providing ammo against it. All the time.

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA is at the end of the combat a sub phase of the assault phase(you could even make an argument SA is a sub phase all of its own )

No, you couldnt. The subphases are defined.

Erm that fact you have argued against this proves that you can argue it and of course the sub phases are defined, which points to SA ending not carrying on to the end of the phase

Huh? More made up gak from you. I have not argued that SA is a new "sub phase" - that would be you making gak up. I think youre getting confused.

Liturgies - huh? What is the synonym of "now"? "At this stage" as a phrase does not mean a single instance in time that has ended. AGain, you havent provided any actual rules argument that holds up to any scrutiny.

It means now, at this moment. While a now isn't a quantum mechanical instant, it has an accepted use in english. Either have you sir, you have misrepresented words to find a way to force in your view.

At this stage refers to the SA, nothing more. The fact that there is a semi-colon shows that the "for them the battle is over" is a different clause that is not reliant on the previous one.

liturgies of blood wrote:It means now, at this moment. While a now isn't a quantum mechanical instant, it has an accepted use in english. Either have you sir, you have misrepresented words to find a way to force in your view.

At this stage refers to the SA, nothing more. The fact that there is a semi-colon shows that the "for them the battle is over" is a different clause that is not reliant on the previous one.

It'd be great if you could refer to the definitions you quoted and read them. They don't agree with you.

liturgies of blood wrote:It means now, at this moment. While a now isn't a quantum mechanical instant, it has an accepted use in english. Either have you sir, you have misrepresented words to find a way to force in your view.

At this stage refers to the SA, nothing more. The fact that there is a semi-colon shows that the "for them the battle is over" is a different clause that is not reliant on the previous one.

Again, nonoe of the quotes you provided actually say what you are claiming. Try reading them again.

The semi colon tells you that it IS related to the preceding phrase; it indicates a break that is stronger than a comma cn provide. Again, try again. Context is still eluding you, it seems.

Eh, not sure which of you it was said that "at this stage" refers to the entire phase. That is not what I read within the context of the paragraph.
As I said that is a reading you could have but not one I agree with. Since most of your argument is based on that assertion I question it. By your own admission "at this stage" refers to a stage which you see as being a phase. We see it as a sub-phase.

There is a difference between reliant and related.
I do not see that phrase as being more then filler in the same way as the wounds section on page 2.

It was actually Snakel who was equating Stage to Phase, i was pointing out the consequences of doing so.

Precisely NONE of my argument is based on "at this stage" lasting the phase - it lasts until you are told it has been altered, as the dictionary tells you "at this stage" means.

Your claim is the clear directive "for them the battle is over" is just fluff again then? You keep swapping around. The two statements are related, hence the semi colon.

liturgies of blood wrote:Eh, not sure which of you it was said that "at this stage" refers to the entire phase.

I've never said that. That's what someone is telling me I said, but I haven't. There is no end to the stage in the rulebook.

That is not what I read within the context of the paragraph.
As I said that is a reading you could have but not one I agree with. Since most of your argument is based on that assertion I question it.

liturgies of blood wrote:It means now, at this moment. While a now isn't a quantum mechanical instant, it has an accepted use in english. Either have you sir, you have misrepresented words to find a way to force in your view.

At this stage refers to the SA, nothing more.

That doesn't sound like "a reading you could have but not one I agree with".
It sounds like you're telling me I'm flat out 100% wrong.
Which is interesting because the definitions you posted agree with me.

Of course they are related, for anyone that doesn't have a special rule being RFPaaC does mean the battle is over. Just like page 2 says for models that loose their last wound.
Why does the stage, the moment of a SA causing RFPaaC, continue?

liturgies of blood wrote:Of course they are related, for anyone that doesn't have a special rule being RFPaaC does mean the battle is over. Just like page 2 says for models that loose their last wound.

Sigh

It also defines the context of the phrase, and relates it to the "no special rule" clause.

You keep ignoring it. Dont.

liturgies of blood wrote:Why does the stage, the moment of a SA causing RFPaaC, continue?

Because you're never given permission to end it.

No it doesn't, it refers to the outcome of what came before.
No special rule relates to preventing the outcome of SA not preventing anything more.

If SA never ends then your models are always making a SA, hence they cannot do anything more as they cannot leave assault.

liturgies of blood wrote:If SA never ends then your models are always making a SA, hence they cannot do anything more as they cannot leave assault.

That's absolutely false.
SA does end - it finishes resolving.

BRB 27 wrote:The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

Unit is removed as casualties. Stop. They cannot be rescued unless otherwise specified until you move on from this stage.

That does not mean that SA never finishes resolving. Stop with that false straw man argument.

liturgies of blood wrote:No it doesn't, it refers to the outcome of what came before.
No special rule relates to preventing the outcome of SA not preventing anything more.

If SA never ends then your models are always making a SA, hence they cannot do anything more as they cannot leave assault.

The stage of not being able to save or rescue the unit, and their battle being over, continues. Not SA as a whole "state" of rule.

Find permission to end "at this stage". You cannot, so it does not. Again

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:No it doesn't, it refers to the outcome of what came before.
No special rule relates to preventing the outcome of SA not preventing anything more.

If SA never ends then your models are always making a SA, hence they cannot do anything more as they cannot leave assault.

The stage of not being able to save or rescue the unit, and their battle being over, continues. Not SA as a whole "state" of rule.

Find permission to end "at this stage". You cannot, so it does not. Again

pg 27. That stage clearly and explicitly ends. Consolidation. "At the end of combat...."

EL triggers after Consolidation. Consolidation "ends" combat and all its stages.

Fragile wrote:pg 27. That stage clearly and explicitly ends. Consolidation. "At the end of combat...."

EL triggers after Consolidation. Consolidation "ends" combat and all its stages.

Combat ends.
I don't see a reference saying the stage created by a SA ends.

Is SA an outcome? If so what does it mean?
The rules don't describe it as an outcome, they describe it as a process. The outcome of that process is RFPaaC.

Where does it say that SA carries on?

liturgies of blood wrote:Is SA an outcome? If so what does it mean?

No, SA overall is a process. The outcome is a unit that is RFPaaC and cannot be rescued unless otherwise specified.

The rules don't describe it as an outcome, they describe it as a process. The outcome of that process is RFPaaC.

You left a part off.

Where does it say that SA carries on?

"at this stage".
Where does it say the unit can now be rescued?

No, the "at this stage" refers to during the SA process, ATSKNF is during that process and as such meets the requirements of specifically mentioning how it stops that process.

No honestly explain clearly how "at this stage" (which means at the present time, during this part, or in this step) means that a unit is still caught in the process and that it is now RFPaacC and cannot come back.

http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/at-this-stage

At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity....

Nothing there supports an ongoing action.

liturgies of blood wrote:No, the "at this stage" refers to during the SA process, ATSKNF is during that process and as such meets the requirements of specifically mentioning how it stops that process.

I've shown, using definitions provided by you, how that interpretation is incorrect. "at this stage" is not a singular defined point in time, it is a change from one stage to another.
You're arbitrarily limiting that stage to end when SA finishes resolving with no rules support.

No honestly explain clearly how "at this stage" (which means at the present time, during this part, or in this step) means that a unit is still caught in the process and that it is now RFPaacC and cannot come back.

I have. Are you ignoring my posts?
It doesn't mean that. I've shown you this before. Continuing to insist that it doesn't won't change the definitions you posted.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Is SA an outcome? If so what does it mean?

No, SA overall is a process. The outcome is a unit that is RFPaaC and cannot be rescued unless otherwise specified.

The rules don't describe it as an outcome, they describe it as a process. The outcome of that process is RFPaaC.

You left a part off.

Where does it say that SA carries on?

"at this stage".
Where does it say the unit can now be rescued?

Rescuing the unit /model would mean saving them from it, you cant save some one from being shot unless you stop the bullet form hitting them !!!!

SA fires, the bullet is the force of SA sweeping over the unit now if EL stopped that bullet from hitting then you would be correct, but it does not ,once the bullet has hit nothing can stop it = no special rule can save them from SA .

Now the bullet has stopped it does not d carry on hitting everything behind that person !!!! and now if your lucky you can save the person from the injuries sustained by the bullet '/shooting but you cant turn back the clock and stop them being shot !!!

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:No, the "at this stage" refers to during the SA process, ATSKNF is during that process and as such meets the requirements of specifically mentioning how it stops that process.

I've shown, using definitions provided by you, how that interpretation is incorrect. "at this stage" is not a singular defined point in time, it is a change from one stage to another.
You're arbitrarily limiting that stage to end when SA finishes resolving with no rules support.

If it is the change from one stage to another then it is by your definition is a moment in time, the point of change. You are not listening to yourself.

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:No, the "at this stage" refers to during the SA process, ATSKNF is during that process and as such meets the requirements of specifically mentioning how it stops that process.

I've shown, using definitions provided by you, how that interpretation is incorrect. "at this stage" is not a singular defined point in time, it is a change from one stage to another.
You're arbitrarily limiting that stage to end when SA finishes resolving with no rules support.

If it is the change from one stage to another then it is by your definition is a moment in time, the point of change. You are not listening to yourself.

Yes, the beginning of a new stage is a singular point in time. "this stage" is not a singular point in time. You're limiting the stage to the duration of SA with no rules support.
My apologies for mischoosing my words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

snakel wrote:Rescuing the unit /model would mean saving them from it, you cant save some one from being shot unless you stop the bullet form hitting them !!!!

Fluff argument?

Now the bullet has stopped it does not d carry on hitting everything behind that person !!!! and now if your lucky you can save the person from the injuries sustained by the bullet '/shooting but you cant turn back the clock and stop them being shot !!!

But that's literally exactly what you're trying to do.
The unit is RFPaaC. It cannot be rescued.
Placing the unit back on the board is the very definition of rescuing the unit.
EL doesn't create a new unit. It's still the old unit, just rescued from destruction.

Ok. While there is no rules support to say that "at this stage" refers to just the SA phase, I don't see anything that expands it beyond it.
If you sub in at this time or during this process or some other synonym into the sentence then it appears clearer to me at least that it is referring to SA's duration as being up until the unit is dead no rules can intercede.

I am not saying it's like a steve jackson game and you have 2.3 seconds to call shenanigans otherwise EL works, I am just saying SA is self containing within itself. That it wraps itself up in a neat little package and then you can move on to consolidation.

In reference to your above post, if you follow "at this stage" to refer to the process then it is fine to go ahead.

liturgies of blood wrote:I am just saying SA is self containing within itself. That it wraps itself up in a neat little package and then you can move on to consolidation.

So you agree that "at this stage" creates a stage where the unit cannot be rescued.
You're just limiting this stage to when SA resolves.


Why? Where is the rules support saying that the unit can now be rescued?

"For them the battle is over" seems to be the sticking point

I always thought the the rulebook was the general and the codex was the specific. For a large majority of the units that would be true, the battle would be over. However we have specific instances in the codex that say this is not true that is further backed up by the FAQ. I still fail to say where in sweeping advance the rule must save it from sweeping advance rather than from being destroyed which is the effect of sweeping advance.

Leth wrote:"For them the battle is over" seems to be the sticking point

I haven't cited that phrase this entire argument, so it's not a sticking point for me.

So, if "stage" is going to be the word you use. Next game I see the same unit that I swept last game put on the field by you, Ill inform you that nothing can save that unit and that they died last game.
I know you understand the fallacy in the point there.

You claim that the "stage" (in this case, the adjective as written within the sentence) is ongoing until the ... ??? You dont know, but its on going.

When you add the rest of the sentence to the word, it gives you when it has begun, and ended. "At" is the start; "This stage" is the end. Its intention is just as your describing rigeld2. The intended purpose of this rule was to keep the unit down until the end of the game. RAW it does not do that. The stage in which no special rules may be used is contained within the Sweeping Advance. After you finish with the Sweeping Advance, your special rule that pops your guys up chronologically after the Sweeping Advances rule is going to work. If your Special Rule pops your guys up during the Sweeping Advance, you may not as the "No Special Rule or Save may rescue the unit at this stage" is in effect.

I would dare say that your cling to the word 'Stage' is a crux at this point. This game covers steps, phrases and sub-phases, there are no stages in this game and if there is, I WILL be the man with high-score.

Xzerios when did you place the token for EL? During SA? If so please cite a rule allowing that to happen. Seeings how the act of RFPaaC is part of the SA, you cannot place the token, seeings how it is a special rule. Do not even try to say that you place the token after SA, because well once you move onto another thing in the phase you are not allowed by EL to place that token.

EL either is an instantaneous cause and effect (with regards to placing the token) or it doesn't work at all.

I direct you to read the rules for Ever Living. I know what route your about to take too good sir.

I direct your attention to ANY special rule that states that its trigger conditions is that the model is removed as a casualty. ANY special rule sir is what you are stating doesnt work at all for the duration of the Sweeping Advance. That is not the case. Its conditions are that "no Special Rule or save may rescue the unit at this stage;" Suppose for example, my Ever Living Token said "place a blast template over the center of the token at the end of the phase, all models under the template suffer a Str 5 AP- blast." Would you have an issue with the special rule then?

If not, then there is nothing that prevents the token from going down which will allow for the roll for Ever Living to work at the end of the phase.

Xzerios wrote:I direct you to read the rules for Ever Living. I know what route your about to take too good sir.

I direct your attention to ANY special rule that states that its trigger conditions is that the model is removed as a casualty. ANY special rule sir is what you are stating doesnt work at all for the duration of the Sweeping Advance. That is not the case. Its conditions are that "no Special Rule or save may rescue the unit at this stage;" Suppose for example, my Ever Living Token said "place a blast template over the center of the token at the end of the phase, all models under the template suffer a Str 5 AP- blast." Would you have an issue with the special rule then?

If not, then there is nothing that prevents the token from going down which will allow for the roll for Ever Living to work at the end of the phase.

I'm assuming you meant that if the EL rule said to place a blast marker, and ever model taking the hits. If so, it is not a special rule saving the unit. So it would be allowed. If your EL Token says to do that, it wouldn't matter as you have no permission to make the "attack".

You do not understand now what that sentence is requesting the swept unit to do. You cant flip flop your understanding of the sentence to fit your argument. Please, pick one and stick with it.

In context of the sentence, the only thing that we are not given permission to do is prevent the Sweeping Advance with a Special Rule or save and this effect is ongoing until the end of the Sweeping Advances rule.

As far as what the sentence is baring is any Special Rule that
A: Prevents the Sweeping Advance from occurring unless that Special Rule is ATSKNF.
B: Allows the models to rejoin either the unit, or the board (thats what the sentence after the semi-colon is stating) for the duration of the Sweeping Advance.

Did Everliving prevent the Sweeping Advance?
A: No, it even states that for the duration that the token is down, the model with the Special Rule is dead.
B: No, the model is dead, remained dead for the duration of the Sweeping Advance.'

Wish to attack the token itself?

Did the Token prevent the Sweeping Advance?
A: No, its a placement item. A marker to indicate where the model was when it died. Its also outlined at the end of the phase that if the model comes back, it must do so within 3" of that token. It may not be within 1" of any enemy model and if those conditions cannot be met, then you may not place the model.
B: The token is the placement item for the duration of the Sweeping Advance.



Those are what the sentence is checking for and preventing.

Xzerios wrote:So, if "stage" is going to be the word you use. Next game I see the same unit that I swept last game put on the field by you, Ill inform you that nothing can save that unit and that they died last game.
I know you understand the fallacy in the point there.

You claim that the "stage" (in this case, the adjective as written within the sentence) is ongoing until the ... ??? You dont know, but its on going.

When you add the rest of the sentence to the word, it gives you when it has begun, and ended. "At" is the start; "This stage" is the end. Its intention is just as your describing rigeld2. The intended purpose of this rule was to keep the unit down until the end of the game. RAW it does not do that. The stage in which no special rules may be used is contained within the Sweeping Advance. After you finish with the Sweeping Advance, your special rule that pops your guys up chronologically after the Sweeping Advances rule is going to work. If your Special Rule pops your guys up during the Sweeping Advance, you may not as the "No Special Rule or Save may rescue the unit at this stage" is in effect.

I would dare say that your cling to the word 'Stage' is a crux at this point. This game covers steps, phrases and sub-phases, there are no stages in this game and if there is, I WILL be the man with high-score.

It would be great if you could prove your assertion with rules quotes, or even some kind of definition.
The ones I've used have shown I'm right. And they were provided by someone on your side.

"Unless otherwise specified, no Save or Special Rule can rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over."

Grammatically, this supports your point. The aforementioned time frame for the prevention of saves and Special Rules is extended beyond the first sentences start of the rule to the end of the rule to the reset of the game as Ive demonstrated above. The lynch pin of your gentlemens' argument is a simple punctuation mark. This is why you folks are incorrect. That colored comma above allows the sentence that (as I have written it) to extend the time frame of the check from the duration of the rule to the start of the rule until the end of the game.

As it currently reads;

"Unless otherwise specified, no Save or Special Rule can rescue the unit at this stage; For them the battle is over."

The Semi-colon here is a stop. It goes from being the "until end of game" piece of the puzzle you need to be correct to a agreement sentence to the one just prior to it. As it currently works, that unit gets swept, you check to see if they have ATSKNF and if they dont; Remove the unit as casualties. Check now to see if the model has any special rules that allow them to come back during the stage of the rule. If they do, they may not use them during the Sweeping Advance. For "them" (target: unit, past tense as in its now dead), the battle is over. Due to your semi-colon, the time frame remains the same as the sentence following the punctuation is now locked into the same time frame as the sentence before it. Sweeping Advances rule has now ended. Its time frame to prevent models with any Special Rule from getting back up has now ended as well.

It would be great if you could prove your assertion with rules quotes, or even some kind of definition.
The ones I've used have shown I'm right. And they were provided by someone on your side.

Are you referring to the two links you posted on page 13? If so, I already proved that your two links coincide with my argument, which up to now has been building the timeline that Sweeping Advances works within. As far as what Ive covered is concerned, I rightfully expect you to have a grasp on the English grammar at this point, maybe not definitions, but punctuations and tense forms of words. If you dont, I wouldnt recommend arguing in this argument as thats what the subject matter pertains to.

Can you cite one time I've used the "for them the battle is over" for my argument?

Nothing I've said hinges on that punctuation.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467352.page#4633626

"Unless otherwise stated, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit from this point forward; for them the battle is over." EL does rescue/save the unit from destruction in the phase that it was swept. Therefore, you cannot roll for legally placed EL tokens at the end of that Assault phase.

In this case, your merely quoting the rule so I wont hold it against you. Ive read all your posts and Ive already outlined that your argument of the phrase "as this stage" is by definition a single point in time. Read that tidbit out loud to yourself. Now tell me how that tidbit can be taken to an undefined period of time when its in fact an ending of itself? It has potential to carry on to that undefined period of time but in order for that to do so, it needs help from other words that come after it to help shape it into that ongoing time frame. Only problem is in this situation is that this section IS the end of the sentence. Theres still a glimmer of hope for it yet though, theres another sentence afterwards and the wording defiantly helps move it into the undefined period of time; YET its cut off by a semi-colon! Due in nature to what a semi-colon is, it does not push the "at this stage" into the undefined period that is needed to keep models from coming back for the remainder of the game. Instead, it simply agrees that the models that are dead, may not come back during this rule.



Thats why its important to note punctuation. In this case, it just hucklebucked your arguments dreams of reaching undefined periods of time to prevent models with special rules from coming back at X time outside the predefined time line by "at this stage".

It's not an ending in and of itself.
It talks about a single stage.
A stage cannot, in the context of this phrase, be a specific point in time.
You've still not proven that the stage ends - you're hinging your argument on a semicolon that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It could be a period for all I care.

"Can I help you?"
"Not at this stage; monkeys like bananas. "
"How about now?"

That's what you're asserting is a logical sequence.
The stage is set/created and you must have permission to end it. Even if it ends, you must have permission to change what was set in that stage. You've proven neither.

Xterios - a semi colon is NOT a period. It is a stronger pause than a comma.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/semicolon

I already gave this infoirmation, you must have missed it.

rigeld2 wrote:It's not an ending in and of itself.
It talks about a single stage.
A stage cannot, in the context of this phrase, be a specific point in time.
You've still not proven that the stage ends - you're hinging your argument on a semicolon that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It could be a period for all I care.

"Can I help you?"
"Not at this stage; monkeys like bananas. "
"How about now?"

That's what you're asserting is a logical sequence.
The stage is set/created and you must have permission to end it. Even if it ends, you must have permission to change what was set in that stage. You've proven neither.

Why can a stage, a period of time/the time taken to carry out an action/a portion of a process or activity, not be a claimed to be specific period of time? I still amn't getting this. I can't think of a use of the word stage that does not refer to a specific instance(other then other uses of the word such as a performance area).
Even the example above is a specific point in time, the response to the second question could be easily "yes I can take your help now, I have finished with the monkeys. Help me to feed the dingos."

I don't think "for them the battle is over" is an important part of this debate, I think it is flavour text and even if it was a sentence on it's own it's meaning would not change.

"At this stage" could one of a variety of sets of steps.

1. The turn stage of the game.
2. The combat phase stage of the turn.
3. The Sweeping Advance stage of combat.
4. (you cannot dice each process of the game into any finer stages)

The context of all rules in the Sweeping Advance rule describe the Sweeping Advance stage of combat. While the unit is "making a Sweeping Advance" is described in the rules. In a permissive ruleset, for any aspect of that rule to carry on beyond the end of Sweeping Advance it must say. An example would be "Models killed during lose 1 from their attacks for the rest of the game". Otherwise, all effects end. The game cannot work any other way.

A unit makes a Sweeping Advance. Necron Codex requires you to place an EL token.

There is no permission to carry on the SA action beyond the SA stage of combat.

liturgies of blood wrote:Why can a stage, a period of time/the time taken to carry out an action/a portion of a process or activity, not be a claimed to be specific period of time? I still amn't getting this. I can't think of a use of the word stage that does not refer to a specific instance(other then other uses of the word such as a performance area).
Even the example above is a specific point in time, the response to the second question could be easily "yes I can take your help now, I have finished with the monkeys. Help me to feed the dingos."

Yes, it could be - and it would indicate the end of the previous stage.
That's not what the BRB says, however. There's nothing to indicate that the stage is over.
A stage is a period of time, not a specific millisecond of time. It has a beginning and an end. The beginning is mentioned in the SA rules. Not a single person has found the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Otherwise, all effects end. The game cannot work any other way.

So multi-wound models regenerate at the end of every turn? The rules just say to subtract one from the wounds characteristic on my profile. If all effects end, I can add it right back after subtracting it.

So Rigeld, are you saying that it is just badly worded by the GW team?

Sorry but "at this stage" does not indicate the end of the previous stage, it sets a limit on what may be done during this stage. Now if your contention is that "this stage" is the entire phase then fine, get the forum locked it will never be proven to be one way or another until an FAQ comes out.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Why can a stage, a period of time/the time taken to carry out an action/a portion of a process or activity, not be a claimed to be specific period of time? I still amn't getting this. I can't think of a use of the word stage that does not refer to a specific instance(other then other uses of the word such as a performance area).
Even the example above is a specific point in time, the response to the second question could be easily "yes I can take your help now, I have finished with the monkeys. Help me to feed the dingos."

Yes, it could be - and it would indicate the end of the previous stage.
That's not what the BRB says, however. There's nothing to indicate that the stage is over.
A stage is a period of time, not a specific millisecond of time. It has a beginning and an end. The beginning is mentioned in the SA rules. Not a single person has found the end.

Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

Just watching some bad fantasy and now I know how you are reading this.

You read it in a "nothing can be done for him now" kind of way. Am I correct?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

Oh really? It mentions that units that were swept can be rescued now?
... Hrm. I must have a misprint rulebook then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:You read it in a "nothing can be done for him now" kind of way. Am I correct?

Yes.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

So consolidation mentions that units that were swept can now be rescued? Odd, my rulebook doesnt have that wording in it. Care to prove it?

This cannot be worked out, then so.
1) need a special rule to save the unit from here on out
2) need a special rule to save the unit during this step

From the context it could be either, need an faq.

liturgies of blood wrote:This cannot be worked out, then so.
1) need a special rule to save the unit from here on out
2) need a special rule to save the unit during this step

From the context it could be either, need an faq.

How? You agree that "at this stage" talks about a period of time.
You haven't found *anything* that ends that period of time. You're assuming that it ends at the end of SA resolving with zero proof.

liturgies of blood wrote:This cannot be worked out, then so.
1) need a special rule to save the unit from here on out
2) need a special rule to save the unit during this step

From the context it could be either, need an faq.

2) is incorrect, as you havent found ANY proof anywhere of the end of the stage. If you had done you would have posted it.

UNtil you provide proof that the stage has ended, it has not ended.

If you would care to play devils advocate and look at the rules as I read them, then there is nothing to extent the process beyond the resolution of SA.
Since the stage is referring to SA in my reading where does the extension happen.
In your reading it works differently due to how it reads within context.

liturgies of blood wrote:If you would care to play devils advocate and look at the rules as I read them, then there is nothing to extent the process beyond the resolution of SA.
Since the stage is referring to SA in my reading where does the extension happen.
In your reading it works differently due to how it reads within context.

I'm not going to play devils advocate without some basis of fact.
There's nothing restricting effects to only the resolution of the process that creates the effect.
You're arbitrarily limiting it for no reason. You still haven't said why. "I read it that way." isn't valid support.

Fine, I tried to be civil. You read it one way that creates an ongoing effect by inference only. I see nothing that states clearly and without conflict an ongoing effect.

liturgies of blood wrote:Fine, I tried to be civil. You read it one way that creates an ongoing effect by inference only. I see nothing that states clearly and without conflict an ongoing effect.

Everything points to it being an ongoing effect.
1) The restriction is listed.
2) There's no end time on the restriction.
3) Other restrictions do have end times (psyker powers).
4) Assuming that nothing is ongoing unless it specifies breaks the game - wounds.

I am being civil. You just haven't factually supported your case.

The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

liturgies of blood wrote:The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

And you still haven't found anything that says the stage ends - you're still assuming without evidence that it ends when SA finishes resolving.
Page 15 doesn't say anything about wounds carrying on - it just says to "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." Done, resolved. Next step I can add that wound back because there's nothing saying the wound is ongoing, right?

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

And you still haven't found anything that says the stage ends - you're still assuming without evidence that it ends when SA finishes resolving.
Page 15 doesn't say anything about wounds carrying on - it just says to "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." Done, resolved. Next step I can add that wound back because there's nothing saying the wound is ongoing, right?

Poor argument is poor. What's next? BRB doesn't define "that"? A stage by definition is a period of time or process, a process ends. A defined period of time or action has a beginning and an end.

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

And you still haven't found anything that says the stage ends - you're still assuming without evidence that it ends when SA finishes resolving.
Page 15 doesn't say anything about wounds carrying on - it just says to "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." Done, resolved. Next step I can add that wound back because there's nothing saying the wound is ongoing, right?

Poor argument is poor. What's next? BRB doesn't define "that"? A stage by definition is a period of time or process, a process ends. A defined period of time or action has a beginning and an end.

No, its pointing out that YOUR argument is flawed, and has been throughout this thread. You have failed to provide any support for your "this ends at the end of SA" contention, and get uncivil when asked.

A stage has an end when a rule calls for it. Wounds dont have an end, they continue to the end of the battle. BEing unable to rescue the unit doesnt have an end, they continue to the end of the battle.

Time to step away?

liturgies of blood wrote:A stage by definition is a period of time or process, a process ends. A defined period of time or action has a beginning and an end.

Agreed. Now where in the rules does it tell us that the period of time (where the unit cannot be saved) ends? It doesn't. Therefore it does not end until the game is over.

DeathReaper wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

In general a model can take no further part in the battle and is dead when it's wounds are reduced to 0, see page 2 for how this affects their battle worthiness.
I think coming back from RFPaaC such as with EL or whatever st celestine has is a rule that says you can take futher part in a battle but only at that stage. You may be RFPaaC again.

Does EL, as a special rule, "specifically say otherwise"?

(Hint. the answer is no it does not specifically say otherwise).

This is where your argument fails. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that we all accept that the ATSKNF rule is the example by which other rules must use to allow a unit to avoid being swept by a SA. Now, how does the ATSKNF rule actually save or rescues the unit from a SA? It stops the SA from happening. It doesn't allow the SA to happen then destroy the unit (RFPaaC) and them bring them back. The restriction in SA about 'unless otherwise specified' is all about stopping the SA from happening to the unit that loses the Assault. This is what you guys aren't getting. For whatever reason your thinking that EL somehow equates to ATSKNF with respect to saving/rescuing a unit from a SA when clearly that's not how either rule mechanic works.

-Yad

No, what you arent getting is that you are, without any rules support whatsoever (as in none, zip, zilch, nada - not a single shred of rules support at any point in this entire thread that supports your contention) deciding that the only way to rescue / save a unit is to prevent them from being RaaC.

Again: WBB was a "special rule" that did not specify that it could rescue a unit from SA, and it was stated as the canonical example of such. EL is also a special rule, that does not specify it can rescue a unit from SA, so it cannot.

Please, for once provide a rule that supports your contention that the ONLY way to rescue a unit from SA is to prevent the unit from being removed. Language and context of the actual rules states the opposite, so this could be an interesting exercise

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

Oh really? It mentions that units that were swept can be rescued now?
... Hrm. I must have a misprint rulebook then.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

Oh really? It mentions that units that were swept can be rescued now?
... Hrm. I must have a misprint rulebook then.

A unit cannot continue to move units in the shooting phase. Naturally when Sweeping Advance is completely resolved, the unit may make a Consolidation move.

Nothing allows you to make a Sweeping Advance during or after your Consolidation move.

Sweeping Advance says nothing about preventing anything at the end of the phase.

...which doesnt answer the question asked. When does "at this stage", a condition within SA, end? Find a rule ending that specific stage.

Hint: if you are just assuming this ends, then multiwound models regenerate wounds at the end of the wound removal step, as they also have no language stating their effects last.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So for them the battle ISNT over?

Guess you keep ignoring the rules that disagree with you.

Great argument

As stated earlier, what you are referring to is fluff.

No, it is a clear directive you MUST follow. You have decided it is fluff without any reason for doing so

You are also ignoring the CONTEXT of "at this stage" - "for them the battle is over" TELLS YOU the context quite, quite clearly, yet you STILL ignore it

Stop pretending rules are not rules because it destroys your argument, its very, very childish

Ad hominem much? I hope you realize that we have, for the entirety of this thread, been discussing two rules. SA and EL. When you make these odd assertions for people to produce rules beyond these two, it strikes me as a Straw Man. This is a discussion about these two rules. There is no need to talk about 'other rules'.

For them the battle is over because they've been destroyed and RFPaaC by the SA. At that stage (i.e., the destruction and RFPaaC) only specific rules can stop the actual destruction and subsequent RFPaaC. EL does not do this. Only ATSKNF does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yad wrote: And yes, for the unit that is swept and has to specific rule to stop the sweep as required by the SA rule; for them the battle is over. That does not mean you can't roll for EL. What you fail to grasp is that the restrictions placed by the SA rule on avoiding being swept are only concerned about stopping the sweep from occurring. EL doesn't do this.

What you are failing to grasp is that this is not the context of the rule, at all. The context of the rule is that a swept unit cannot continue in hte battle UNLESS the rule specifically states otherwise

Yad wrote:It's not a matter of ignoring rules, it's a matter of certain lack of flexibility of thought on your part.

-Yad

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Another nonsensical statement. All I've been doing is discussing the interaction, or more importantly the lack thereof, of two rules. There is no ignoring of rules. If so, I'd love to know what rules, outside of SA and EL I'm ignoring.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...which doesnt answer the question asked. When does "at this stage", a condition within SA, end? Find a rule ending that specific stage.

Hint: if you are just assuming this ends, then multiwound models regenerate wounds at the end of the wound removal step, as they also have no language stating their effects last.

This stage being SA ends when SA ends, SA ends when you move on to the next part of the assault phase. Are you for real?
You keep throwing absurd bs out there and assume it invalidates our argument.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Get out of 4th edition. You cannot make an argument about WRITTEN RULES using the WRITING from any other Codex or rulebook. You might as well quote a newspaper.

We are discussing 6th edition rules precisely as they are written, word for word here. Go start a thread if you want to discuss 4th edition.

And the 6th edition rule for "no special rule" is identical to the 5th and 4th edition rule. Go figure, that means that you can make precise comparisons and point out where your timing argument has been destroyed.

WBB was THE example of a rule that could not save or rescue a unit, and occurred a full turn later than EL can ever do. So your entire argument fails because you cannot find a reason why EL would work when WBB would not. BEar in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

So, again, your argument is flawed as it cannot overcome one single simple hurdle, never mind all the others you have missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...which doesnt answer the question asked. When does "at this stage", a condition within SA, end? Find a rule ending that specific stage.

Hint: if you are just assuming this ends, then multiwound models regenerate wounds at the end of the wound removal step, as they also have no language stating their effects last.

This stage being SA ends when SA ends, SA ends when you move on to the next part of the assault phase. Are you for real?
You keep throwing absurd bs out there and assume it invalidates our argument.

Because it does

So, you assume that wounds end whenyou have finished applying them to a model? Where is your rules support to say otherwise?

Yad - again, please provide support for "at this stage" ending, the assumption you continually make with so far zero support.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Get out of 4th edition. You cannot make an argument about WRITTEN RULES using the WRITING from any other Codex or rulebook. You might as well quote a newspaper.

We are discussing 6th edition rules precisely as they are written, word for word here. Go start a thread if you want to discuss 4th edition.

And the 6th edition rule for "no special rule" is identical to the 5th and 4th edition rule. Go figure, that means that you can make precise comparisons and point out where your timing argument has been destroyed.

WBB was THE example of a rule that could not save or rescue a unit, and occurred a full turn later than EL can ever do. So your entire argument fails because you cannot find a reason why EL would work when WBB would not. BEar in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

So, again, your argument is flawed as it cannot overcome one single simple hurdle, never mind all the others you have missed.

And the removed from play has been clarified to be RFPaaC.... something is different.

You managed to not read what I wrote then. Try again

Hint, im talking about "no special rule", in case mentioning it once wasnt clear enough

Yad wrote:This is where your argument fails. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that we all accept that the ATSKNF rule is the example by which other rules must use to allow a unit to avoid being swept by a SA. Now, how does the ATSKNF rule actually save or rescues the unit from a SA? It stops the SA from happening. It doesn't allow the SA to happen then destroy the unit (RFPaaC) and them bring them back. The restriction in SA about 'unless otherwise specified' is all about stopping the SA from happening to the unit that loses the Assault. This is what you guys aren't getting. For whatever reason your thinking that EL somehow equates to ATSKNF with respect to saving/rescuing a unit from a SA when clearly that's not how either rule mechanic works.

The unit is destroyed. Post EL is the unit still destroyed?
If you answer no, you've rescued the unit.

Saying that since one example of saving you from SA stops the SA from working at all means that all abilities that save you from SA must stop SA from working at all doesn't work.


edit: Oops, I typed yes but meant no. Nos, if you could edit the quote it'd be great.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:This is where your argument fails. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that we all accept that the ATSKNF rule is the example by which other rules must use to allow a unit to avoid being swept by a SA. Now, how does the ATSKNF rule actually save or rescues the unit from a SA? It stops the SA from happening. It doesn't allow the SA to happen then destroy the unit (RFPaaC) and them bring them back. The restriction in SA about 'unless otherwise specified' is all about stopping the SA from happening to the unit that loses the Assault. This is what you guys aren't getting. For whatever reason your thinking that EL somehow equates to ATSKNF with respect to saving/rescuing a unit from a SA when clearly that's not how either rule mechanic works.

The unit is destroyed. Post EL is the unit still destroyed?
If you answer yes, you've rescued the unit.

Saying that since one example of saving you from SA stops the SA from working at all means that all abilities that save you from SA must stop SA from working at all doesn't work.

This, again

Yad - you continually preach that the only way to rescue the unit from SA is to prevent SA. This has no rules support. You continually dodge this

Well the only way that prevents SA is ATSKNF, there are no other rules I am aware of that prevent it occurring. To rescue a unit you must prevent the SA or the outcome. Similar to rescuing a drunk from a tiger, must rescue him before the tiger takes him out.

liturgies of blood wrote:Well the only way that prevents SA is ATSKNF, there are no other rules I am aware of that prevent it occurring. To rescue a unit you must prevent the SA or the outcome.

And what's the outcome? A destroyed unit.

Similar to rescuing a drunk from a tiger, must rescue him before the tiger takes him out.

Tiger mauls drunk. Drunk is mortally wounded. Drunk goes to hospital and surgeon saves his life.

Ah but a save is defined in the rulebook. A rescue isn't.
The outcome of SA is RFPaaC.

liturgies of blood wrote:Ah but a save is defined in the rulebook. A rescue isn't.

He was going to die. The surgeon rescued him. Also, "or other special rule".

The outcome of SA is RFPaaC.

You keep leaving part of that off. I'm starting to think it's intentional.

It is. Cos that's what the outcome is. The RFPaaC cannot be prevented unless you have something akin to ATSKNF, but once the SA is concluded, it has concluded.

liturgies of blood wrote:It is. Cos that's what the outcome is. The RFPaaC cannot be prevented unless you have something akin to ATSKNF, but once the SA is concluded, it has concluded.

Correct. But the effects last.

Or do I get to put my unit back on the table? After all, SA is done resolving.
Why is only some of the rule an ongoing effect, and not all of it?

Because nothing specifies that SA's restriction goes on, while the game doesn't work if wounds don't get counted. Wounds carry on as per page 2.

RFPaaC is an ongoing effect, for almost every unit in the game it is an ongoing and permanent effect, just not in this specific case.

liturgies of blood wrote:Because nothing specifies that SA's restriction goes on, while the game doesn't work if wounds don't get counted.

So you're arbitrarily applying a limit? Okay.

Wounds carry on as per page 2.

Perhaps I missed it - where does it say they carry on?

RFPaaC is an ongoing effect, for almost every unit in the game it is an ongoing and permanent effect, just not in this specific case.

And what tells you that - since you're the one asserting that it must be stated?

Sorry, my mistake. For wounds carry on read, page 2 as you quoted, page 3, zero-lvl characteristics(the bold text) and page 15 the wound allocation.

So the wound is a measure of how much damage a model can take, if this value falls to zero you die, you remove them til you run out. Once you run out the models are removed from play. Where in that can you restore the wound counter after each turn? Page 2 tells you in very fluffy language that when you hit zero wounds a model cannot fight any longer.

Well EL tells you that on a successful roll that you can come back. That's where it's stated, that is one of 3 rules that can allow a model to be on the board after being RFPaaC.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Bear in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

Wut? ...yah, we're talking about third edition codexes now. Keep thinking that.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Bear in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

Not sure where that nugget came from.
5th ed codex says different. GW says different.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Bear in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

Wut? ...yah, we're talking about third edition codexes now. Keep thinking that.

Sigh. MIssing the point again. Shock.

liturgies of blood wrote:Sorry, my mistake. For wounds carry on read, page 2 as you quoted, page 3, zero-lvl characteristics(the bold text) and page 15 the wound allocation.

So the wound is a measure of how much damage a model can take, if this value falls to zero you die, you remove them til you run out. Once you run out the models are removed from play. Where in that can you restore the wound counter after each turn? Page 2 tells you in very fluffy language that when you hit zero wounds a model cannot fight any longer.

But there's nothing - at all - saying that after I subtract a wound it has to stay off. Nothing saying it's an ongoing effect. You said there was.
The wound is resolved - I've subtracted one from my profile. Now that we're out of the shooting phase I can add it back. It's not stated to be ongoing, right?

Well EL tells you that on a successful roll that you can come back. That's where it's stated, that is one of 3 rules that can allow a model to be on the board after being RFPaaC.

You completely sidestepped my question. I'll quote it.

rigeld2 wrote:And what tells you that - since you're the one asserting that it must be stated?

Referring to your statement of:

RFPaaC is an ongoing effect, for almost every unit in the game it is an ongoing and permanent effect,

You've asserted that an ongoing effect must be stated. You've failed to prove it with Wounds. Go for RFPaaC now.

No longer is it just throwing muck, it's not racking it.
What lets a model enter play? Deployment and being in reserves(there are some others but they are special rules), when removed from play how does a model re-enter it?
Models need specific permission to enter play.

I have a measure of how much damage a model can take, it takes all that it can take.... the rules state an outcome for when it has taken all the damage it can take...
Did the damage cease to happen? No
Did the damage get healed somehow? No
Does the damage disappear in a permissive ruleset? No

You have now gone from permissive ruleset to inane analogy ruleset.

You lost the argument and are now trying to trip me up in non-analogous issues. I said that the effect is at that stage, a phrase that when read can infer an ongoing effect but DOES NOT STATE AN ONGOING EFFECT. There is also another option that reads it relating to the current subphase of the game.

The onus is on your to prove that your reading is the correct one not just prove that mine may not be. You need to do more than cast dispersions.

Aspersions

Odd, usually it is up to one side to prove their case, when the other has done so already.

Personally I HAVE a defined period for the SA effect - the rest of the Battle. As it tells you.

What makes you think it isnt the rest of the battle? The rule DOES say otherwise, so it will be intersting for you to actually provide a decent rules argument showing how it is single instant
(Oh, and if it relates to the same sub phase, EL still cannot occur. As the Fight sub phase is also the end of the assault phase)

Other then at this stage, a phrase that means two things, what states an ongoing effect?


If you are removed from the board how do you come back? Is there any way? No? Then it's ongoing.

liturgies of blood wrote:I have a measure of how much damage a model can take, it takes all that it can take.... the rules state an outcome for when it has taken all the damage it can take...
Did the damage cease to happen? No
Did the damage get healed somehow? No
Does the damage disappear in a permissive ruleset? No

The rules state an outcome (RFPaaC and cannot be rescued unless otherwise stated).
Did the RFPaaC cease to happen? No.
Does something otherwise state? No.
Does the state of requiring something to be otherwise stated disappear in a permissive ruleset? No.

You lost the argument and are now trying to trip me up in non-analogous issues. I said that the effect is at that stage, a phrase that when read can infer an ongoing effect but DOES NOT STATE AN ONGOING EFFECT. There is also another option that reads it relating to the current subphase of the game.

You still haven't shown that Wounds, RFPaaC, or anything else you assert (copying your caps) STATES AN ONGOING EFFECT.

Yes, it's inane to require that. You're the one requiring it.

The onus is on your to prove that your reading is the correct one not just prove that mine may not be. You need to do more than cast dispersions.

I have. The entire thread. I'm showing you how your reading makes no sense if you apply it rulebook wide. If you're requiring a rule to have to state it's an ongoing effect, but you exempt Wounds, RFPaaC, or whatever else - I'm forced to ask why you exclude them. You haven't given a rule that says "Wounds are ongoing." You're inferring it based on context. And then telling me that I'm wrong when I do the exact same thing to SA.

Context, that thing you keep ignoring and seem to be hoping will go away

Being told that the stage continues until the end of the battle REALLY should clue you in, but apparently it hasnt been.

Or are you going to (re?)assert that a semi colon acts as a period, as has been raised and demolished twice this thread already?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Context, that thing you keep ignoring and seem to be hoping will go away

Being told that the stage continues until the end of the battle REALLY should clue you in, but apparently it hasnt been.

Or are you going to (re?)assert that a semi colon acts as a period, as has been raised and demolished twice this thread already?

Where does it say that stage, the stage where no save or special rule may save the unit, continues? Explicitly states it, not implicit understanding.

liturgies of blood wrote:Explicitly states it, not implicit understanding.

The exact same place it states it for Wounds and RFPaaC.

So you are going to shoehorn a limitation in there because despite there is no method for a model to come back on the board when RFPaaC(apart from EL, RP and st celestine) there is no way to come back?
I see....

liturgies of blood wrote:So you are going to shoehorn a limitation in there because despite there is no method for a model to come back on the board when RFPaaC(apart from EL, RP and st celestine) there is no way to come back?
I see....

Yeah, there's no method to come back apart from methods to come back.
I'm not really sure what this post has to do with the discussion at hand.

Have you found some place that explicitly states that wounds and RFPaaC are ongoing effects yet?
If not, why are you drawing an arbitrary line for them but not giving the same treatment to SA?

Because there is only 3 stated methods to come back from being RFPaaC.
There is only 1 way to get wounds back in the BRB.
The rules don't give you a way to come back otherwise or to gain back wounds.

I am not drawing an arbitrary line I am reading what is written, I am stating that within the context of the paragraph that there is no ongoing effect. You have inferred one and are just trying to draw this out.

"I shall take a piss at this stage". Do I continue to empty my bowls forever?

rigeld2 wrote:Have you found some place that explicitly states that wounds and RFPaaC are ongoing effects yet?
If not, why are you drawing an arbitrary line for them but not giving the same treatment to SA?

Two sentences:

1. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit."
2. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

The first, has no limit placed on it. The second which is what the rulebook says, has a limit. It's limited to the Sweeping Advance stage of combat.

This lets units with ATSKNF stay alive "at this stage." This also makes models with EL die "at this stage". It says nothing about other stages of combat or what happens after combat is over.

liturgies of blood wrote:Because there is only 3 stated methods to come back from being RFPaaC.

And there's 1 stated method to stop SA.

The rules don't give you a way to come back otherwise or to gain back wounds.

The rules don't give EL a way to bring a unit back after SA.

I am not drawing an arbitrary line I am reading what is written, I am stating that within the context of the paragraph that there is no ongoing effect. You have inferred one and are just trying to draw this out.

Stop with the accusations please.
You are drawing an arbitrary line. You have said that SA doesn't explicitly say that it is an ongoing effect, therefore it isn't.
You've failed to see that Wounds and RFPaaC do the exact same thing.
So you're allowing an inference in those two cases but refuse to do so for SA. That's an arbitrary line.

"I shall take a piss at this stage". Do I continue to empty my bowls forever?

Until you move on to the next stage, sure. When you're taking a piss you get to decide when to transition from one stage to the next.
In the rules, you need to be told when to do this. You haven't found where the next stage begins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Have you found some place that explicitly states that wounds and RFPaaC are ongoing effects yet?
If not, why are you drawing an arbitrary line for them but not giving the same treatment to SA?

Two sentences:

1. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit."
2. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

The first, has no limit placed on it. The second which is what the rulebook says, has a limit. It's limited to the Sweeping Advance stage of combat.

This lets units with ATSKNF stay alive "at this stage." This also makes models with EL die "at this stage". It says nothing about other stages of combat or what happens after combat is over.

Cite the rule proving the bolded statement. You'd be the first, despite being asked to show evidence multiple times.

"at this stage" allows a rule to change things later. Right now there isn't one. That doesn't mean no such rule will ever exist.

edit: Also, you still haven't shown what I asked for in my quote. You're applying a restriction to SA (can only operate during that stage because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise) but allowing Wounds and RFPaaC to go on forever with no restrictions despite the fact that they also don't explicitly state that they're ongoing effects.

rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Have you found some place that explicitly states that wounds and RFPaaC are ongoing effects yet?
If not, why are you drawing an arbitrary line for them but not giving the same treatment to SA?

Two sentences:

1. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit."
2. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

The first, has no limit placed on it. The second which is what the rulebook says, has a limit. It's limited to the Sweeping Advance stage of combat.

This lets units with ATSKNF stay alive "at this stage." This also makes models with EL die "at this stage". It says nothing about other stages of combat or what happens after combat is over.

Cite the rule proving the bolded statement. You'd be the first, despite being asked to show evidence multiple times.

"at this stage" allows a rule to change things later. Right now there isn't one. That doesn't mean no such rule will ever exist.

edit: Also, you still haven't shown what I asked for in my quote. You're applying a restriction to SA (can only operate during that stage because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise) but allowing Wounds and RFPaaC to go on forever with no restrictions despite the fact that they also don't explicitly state that they're ongoing effects.

You're getting a bit extreme, but I'll do my best to explain fully. It comes down to permissive ruleset.

Wounds - you are told to take them off. Nothing says you may arbitrarily put wounds back, so you can't.
RFPaaC - you are told to remove the model from play. Nothing says you may arbitrarily put models back, so you can't.
SA - restricts you from rescuing/saving Necron models during the SA stage. So you can't keep a model alive at this stage. Nothing restricts special rules regarding that model at a later stage.

Nemesor Dave wrote:You're getting a bit extreme, but I'll do my best to explain fully. It comes down to permissive ruleset.

Wounds - you are told to take them off. Nothing says you may arbitrarily put wounds back, so you can't.
RFPaaC - you are told to remove the model from play. Nothing says you may arbitrarily put models back, so you can't.
SA - restricts you from rescuing/saving Necron models during the SA stage. So you can't keep a model alive at this stage. Nothing restricts special rules regarding that model at a later stage.

And why are you saying "SA stage"? Could you cite something limiting that phrase? Finally?

The "stage" is limited to "Right now" as its written. Again, the way the sentence is structured sets up the way "Stage" is meant to be used. Its tense can be swung to the undefined period of time your claiming, but the words that precede it are cut off by the Semi-colon; Thusly limiting to at that step of the rule, that stage of the rule, up to now in the rule.

Your asking for a rule; Its -right- there in front of you. Your unable to grasp it because you mind is made up with RAI "at this stage onwards". RAW the rule works "at this stage" and no longer.



If folks wish to start a wounds being removed and coming back argument, start a new topic. This one is for the way Ever Living interacts with Sweeping Advances. Thanks. :3

So we have moved from SA being an action to an ongoing event ,which you say we have to prove ends .

Answer play it your way
The unit that does the sweeping advance can not move shoot or assault for the rest of the game since we cant prove it ends (your words )

Models losing their wounds can( with no rule to allow it )regain them after the phase (stage)they suffered them in has ended although its ongoing because we cant prove they are not ongoing (your words )

Models RFPAAC for any reason may be placed back on the board at the the start of the next phase ,turn (stage)with no rules allowing them to do so because we cant prove RFPAAC is ongoing (your words )

Every game is a draw as no one can kill anyone, so sounds like a fun game .

SA is an action that like shooting or combats , will if successful remove models from play as casualties (the only difference is SA will remove models with wounds left ,IE multiple wound models , guaranteed )

RFPAAC is the result of SA which 90% of models/ units can not come back from or we would have the above situation .

RFPAAC is not SA It is a way of stating a model is dead and is no longer part of the battle, but in some codex's models have special rules that interact with RFPAAC (not SA)and they allow them at certain stages /sub Phases and phases to be placed back on the table after they have been RFPAAC

This is the crux of the pro EL argument and you have failed to understand it and i can grantee will continue to argue against it which means no matter what we say you wont accept it

SO we all have 3 options

1 Continue arguing round and round with neither side conceding (wheather right or wrong )
2 Let it end and whilst waiting for an FAQ , if you play someone with the opposing view of this argument to your own, roll off for it
3 Refuse to play anyone that does not agree with you while awaiting an FAQ.

I am sure the pro EL side will agree with me that 2 is the best option and 3 to be the second but will the anti EL side agree or will they think by not arguing they would have lost and pick option 1 ??????

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:You're getting a bit extreme, but I'll do my best to explain fully. It comes down to permissive ruleset.

Wounds - you are told to take them off. Nothing says you may arbitrarily put wounds back, so you can't.
RFPaaC - you are told to remove the model from play. Nothing says you may arbitrarily put models back, so you can't.
SA - restricts you from rescuing/saving Necron models during the SA stage. So you can't keep a model alive at this stage. Nothing restricts special rules regarding that model at a later stage.

And why are you saying "SA stage"? Could you cite something limiting that phrase? Finally?

The subject of the whole section under Sweeping Advance is the SA stage of combat. Sweeping Advance section: If X, then do Y "at this stage". Stage here means the current step in a process. That is what "at this stage" means. I won't re-post the link to the phrase definition.

Of course it's not talking about some other stage of combat.

Xzerios wrote:The "stage" is limited to "Right now" as its written. Again, the way the sentence is structured sets up the way "Stage" is meant to be used. Its tense can be swung to the undefined period of time your claiming, but the words that precede it are cut off by the Semi-colon; Thusly limiting to at that step of the rule, that stage of the rule, up to now in the rule.

Your asking for a rule; Its -right- there in front of you. Your unable to grasp it because you mind is made up with RAI "at this stage onwards". RAW the rule works "at this stage" and no longer.

Except I've shown that common usage agrees with me even completely ignoring the semicolon and everything after it.
I've never cited that phrase as support. I don't need it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

snakel wrote:Answer play it your way
The unit that does the sweeping advance can not move shoot or assault for the rest of the game since we cant prove it ends (your words )

Models losing their wounds can( with no rule to allow it )regain them after the phase (stage)they suffered them in has ended although its ongoing because we cant prove they are not ongoing (your words )

Models RFPAAC for any reason may be placed back on the board at the the start of the next phase ,turn (stage)with no rules allowing them to do so because we cant prove RFPAAC is ongoing (your words )

Absolutely false. Please stop strawmanning. Those are absolutely not my words - unless you work for Fox News.

Here's another place in the BRB that use "stage":

Manifesting Psychic Powers p. 67
"Different psychic powers are used at different stages in the
turn; some powers are used at the start of the turn, others
are used at the start of a particular phase, or might replace a
model's normal action within that phase. Sometimes, this will
be specified in the psychic power itself."

You see?
1. The start of the turn - a stage.
2. Start of a particular phase - a stage
3. A normal action within that phase - a stage.

Sweeping Advance - a normal action within a phase - a stage. Sweeping Advance is a stage of combat.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The subject of the whole section under Sweeping Advance is the SA stage of combat. Sweeping Advance section: If X, then do Y "at this stage". Stage here means the current step in a process. That is what "at this stage" means. I won't re-post the link to the phrase definition.

The rule doesn't say "If X, do Y at this stage". It says "X happens. Unless otherwise specified Y at this stage."
The links that have been posted agree with my interpretation, so I understand why you wouldn't want to link them.

Of course it's not talking about some other stage of combat.

I never said "of combat".

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The subject of the whole section under Sweeping Advance is the SA stage of combat. Sweeping Advance section: If X, then do Y "at this stage". Stage here means the current step in a process. That is what "at this stage" means. I won't re-post the link to the phrase definition.

The rule doesn't say "If X, do Y at this stage". It says "X happens. Unless otherwise specified Y at this stage."
The links that have been posted agree with my interpretation, so I understand why you wouldn't want to link them.

Of course it's not talking about some other stage of combat.

I never said "of combat".

See my post above. The phase is the combat phase. The SA action is at a stage of the combat phase.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Here's another place in the BRB that use "stage":

Manifesting Psychic Powers
Different psychic powers are used at different stages in the
turn; some powers are used at the start of the turn, others
are used at the start of a particular phase, or might replace a
model's normal action within that phase. Sometimes, this will
be specified in the psychic power itself.

You see?
1. The start of the turn - a stage.
2. Start of a particular phase - a stage
3. A normal action within that phase - a stage.

Sweeping Advance - a normal action within a phase - a stage. Sweeping Advance is a stage of combat.

Wow - its like I've never seen that before. Except I have. I brought it up something near 10 pages ago.
And it supports my point.
There are stages. They are different lengths. Effects that happen within a stage last longer than the stage unless canceled.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Here's another place in the BRB that use "stage":

Manifesting Psychic Powers
Different psychic powers are used at different stages in the
turn; some powers are used at the start of the turn, others
are used at the start of a particular phase, or might replace a
model's normal action within that phase. Sometimes, this will
be specified in the psychic power itself.

You see?
1. The start of the turn - a stage.
2. Start of a particular phase - a stage
3. A normal action within that phase - a stage.

Sweeping Advance - a normal action within a phase - a stage. Sweeping Advance is a stage of combat.

Wow - its like I've never seen that before. Except I have. I brought it up something near 10 pages ago.
And it supports my point.
There are stages. They are different lengths. Effects that happen within a stage last longer than the stage unless canceled.

There are no different lengths of time shown. Each of these are a point in time in the game.

The start of the turn. The start of movment phase. The start of Combat phase. A normal action within a phase - Sweeping Advance.

Nemesor Dave wrote:There are no different lengths of time shown. Each of these are a point in time in the game.

The start of the turn. The start of movment phase. The start of Combat phase. A normal action within a phase - Sweeping Advance.

And none of them have any effect ever after that stage is over. I see your point - models don't actually move around the battlefield. Thanks for reminding me.

Lasting effects happen without having to be specified.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There are no different lengths of time shown. Each of these are a point in time in the game.

The start of the turn. The start of movment phase. The start of Combat phase. A normal action within a phase - Sweeping Advance.

And none of them have any effect ever after that stage is over. I see your point - models don't actually move around the battlefield. Thanks for reminding me.

Lasting effects happen without having to be specified.

"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

So, nothing can save them during the Sweeping Advance stage. That leaves it wide open for anything to save them after the Sweeping Advance stage.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The subject of the whole section under Sweeping Advance is the SA stage of combat. Sweeping Advance section: If X, then do Y "at this stage". Stage here means the current step in a process. That is what "at this stage" means. I won't re-post the link to the phrase definition.

The rule doesn't say "If X, do Y at this stage". It says "X happens. Unless otherwise specified Y at this stage."
The links that have been posted agree with my interpretation, so I understand why you wouldn't want to link them.

Of course it's not talking about some other stage of combat.

I never said "of combat".

At this stage is a final point as its written, once more. Again, the links you posted on page 13 have confirmed that the way -this sentence in the rule is written- is the end point for the check for Saves and Special Rules. You may continue to assert that your links affirm your point of view on the matter; They will be disregarded as you fail to understand this sentence in the rule itself. Ill say it once more, for "at this stage" to be the ongoing effect you claim it to be, it must be written within -this- sentence as follows:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule may rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over.

There you have it. A sentence that matches what you read. All tenses agree with each other and the semi-colon has been removed to reaffirm the continuation of the check to the end of the game.
To refute this logic at this stage will only prove your lack of understanding of the sentence, for I would concede with the presented information.

Xzerios wrote:They will be disregarded as you fail to understand this sentence in the rule itself. Ill say it once more, for "at this stage" to be the ongoing effect you claim it to be, it must be written within -this- sentence as follows:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule may rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over.

There you have it. A sentence that matches what you read. All tenses agree with each other and the semi-colon has been removed to reaffirm the continuation of the check to the end of the game.
To refute this logic at this stage will only prove your lack of understanding of the sentence, for I would concede with the presented information.

a) cyan on white is really hard to read - just FYI.
b) You could turn that comma into a period - it just doesn't matter. It's fluff reinforcement that isn't needed to hold up the rule.
c) Why the change from can to may? "You are not able to." isn't that different from "You do not have permission to." in this context.

rigeld2 wrote:
I dont see where the sentence changed to read this way. However again your not understanding that the present tense of "stage" is to mean "Up to this point". It doesnt change and its context cant be changed to future-tense due to the words written with in the sentence.
Have you read the definitions and examples your peers have posted?
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+this+stage " At this stage, we are better off not calling the doctor"
That's not "this exact moment in time and will never be another moment" or "up to this point" it's "unless something changes"
http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/at-this-stage "I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later"
Again, not a single point in time, but covers a period of time (until "later").

I had missed this so I'd like to point something out about this.
"At this stage, we are better off not calling the doctor"
Meaning, at the next stage we may be better off calling the doctor. The moment you are in the next stage, this sentence does not apply.

"I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later"
The current stage is now, the next stage would be later. You may be able to pitch in after this stage is over.

You see, in all of these examples, the conditions end when the next stage begins.

The conditions for SA end when the next stage (Consolidation) begins.