Murdius Maximus wrote:
Rigeld2 you ARE skipping step (b). Everything is about that step of the phase, and you continue to argue around that point for whatever reason. That step is the nail in the coffin. Killed=removed as a casualty. The fact that EL triggers at the END OF THE PHASE should shut your argument down. You are trying to argue a point that has been proven. It's like trying to argue whether the rain is wet or not. For you, the battle is over.

Amusing, but incorrect.
I'm not arguing that EL somehow skips step b. At all. It'd behove you to actually read the thread.
I'm stating - factually - that placing the EL counter is an attempt to rescue the unit using a special rule that does not otherwise specify that it can be used to rescue from SA.
I'm stating - factually - that rolling for the counter is in attempt to rescue the unit using a special rule that does not otherwise specify that it can be used to rescue from SA.

The fact that the latter happens at the end of the phase is irrelevant. SA has an ongoing effect ("at this stage") and should be considered for any attempt to rescue the unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
But you are. I am not assuming anything. You are saying that the unit is "saved" and/or "rescued" from the Sweeping Advance, when they are clearly 100% NOT saved or rescued. If they are, why are they taken off the board as casualties?

Because you're attempting to put them back on.

Yup, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the SA.

All I did after the SA was lay down a EL marker. That doesn't save or rescue the unit from the SA at all.

If you are so concrete-footed about this issue, please explain how laying down a marker AFTER THE UNIT IS DESTROYED saves the unit from being destroyed. It doesn't make senese.

Because when the unit is placed back on the table you've rescued it from being destroyed. Meaning that placing the marker is an attempt to save the unit from being destroyed.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but you ignored it then as well.

No, no, no. You keep skipping the plain fact that the unit is actually destroyed by the Sweeping Advance. I can't continue with this line of argument anymore, so its been fun, sir!

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
But you are. I am not assuming anything. You are saying that the unit is "saved" and/or "rescued" from the Sweeping Advance, when they are clearly 100% NOT saved or rescued. If they are, why are they taken off the board as casualties?

Because you're attempting to put them back on.

Yup, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the SA.

All I did after the SA was lay down a EL marker. That doesn't save or rescue the unit from the SA at all.

If you are so concrete-footed about this issue, please explain how laying down a marker AFTER THE UNIT IS DESTROYED saves the unit from being destroyed. It doesn't make senese.

Because when the unit is placed back on the table you've rescued it from being destroyed. Meaning that placing the marker is an attempt to save the unit from being destroyed.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread but you ignored it then as well.

No, no, no. You keep skipping the plain fact that the unit is actually destroyed by the Sweeping Advance. I can't continue with this line of argument anymore, so its been fun, sir!

I'm not skipping that. At all. I've addressed that literally every time you accuse me of skipping it.

Perhaps you'd actually like to address my argument instead of accusing me of doing something I'm demonstrably not? That'd be great.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

As for the above comparison between the 5th ed and 6th ed, i see no difference, and as you agree 5th ed remove EL, then so does 6th ed.
5th: " unit is destroyed; removed immediately; no save or other special rule can rescue"
6th: " unit is destroyed; removed immediately; no save or other special rule can rescue"
Spot the difference? If they wanted the "as a casualty" from 5th ed. Codex to work with the "as a casualty" from 6th ed. BrB, then they would have put it in the FaQ: "Ever-living counters can be placed after a sweeping advance" for example.

The phrase "at this stage" nullifies this argument. "At this stage" is a clear reference to the Sweeping Advance stage of the Assault Phase. Ever Living doesn't save anyone from a Sweeping Advance.

Wait, what?

Naw wrote:
Adding my final thoughts on this subject.
BRB 5th ed:
"The falling back unit is destroyed." ... "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage.."

Going by RAW, in 5th edition SA does prevent EL. I suspect the intent to have been something else.

BRB 6th ed:
"..unit is caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed." ... "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage.."

Both BRB say "at this stage", they are the exact same rules...

But they are not exactly the same rules, "..as casualties.." makes the difference.

I do not play Necrons, I play against them. I don't have anything to gain here.

Naw wrote:
But they are not exactly the same rules, "..as casualties.." makes the difference.

Per the FAQ, that isn't a difference.
IOW Removed from play and Removed from play as a casualty is the same thing.

I think what he is saying, is that because the Lord is, in fact, killed by the sweeping advance, you are not attempting to save him by using the EL roll to bring him back. He isn't saved. He is killed. Dead. Gone. Aidios. Goodbye. Checkmate. Shed loose the mortal coil. Therefore the SA resolves, and at the end of the phase, the EL roll is made.

Also, I have been reading the thread. It is honestly a good source of humor for me because you aren't really arguing anymore. You've been clearly beaten. So no need to be all bitter. You can't argue the FAQ. You certainly cannot argue the resolution step of the SA. So why exactly do you continue to argue?

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I think what he is saying, is that because the unit is, in fact, killed by the sweeping advance, you are not attempting to save them by using the EL roll to bring them back. They are never saved. They are killed. Dead. Gone. Aidios. Goodbye. Checkmate. Shed loose the mortal coil. Therefore the SA resolves, and at the end of the phase, the EL roll is made.

Also, I have been reading the thread. It is honestly a good source of humor for me because you aren't really arguing anymore. You've been clearly beaten. So no need to be all bitter. You can't argue the FAQ. You certainly cannot argue the resolution step of the SA. So why exactly do you continue to argue?

So your assertion is that the unit is never rescued?

The unit dies as they cannot take a RP roll per the Necron Codex. The Lord however, would get a chance because he is removed as a casualty from the SA. There are no rules contradictions. Everything happens as it should. Think of EL as a RP that does not require a unit to be around it to work. It's very plain man I don't see why you continue to argue against a GW FAQ. You may not like it but that is how it is. I'm done with this thread because I can only argue with stubborn refusal to admit defeat for so long.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
The unit dies as they cannot take a RP roll per the Necron Codex. The Lord however, would get a chance because he is removed as a casualty from the SA. There are no rules contradictions. Everything happens as it should. Think of EL as a RP that does not require a unit to be around it to work. It's very plain man I don't see why you continue to argue against a GW FAQ. You may not like it but that is how it is. I'm done with this thread because I can only argue with stubborn refusal to admit defeat for so long.

So assume for the moment that the Lord stands back up (or is revived. resuscitated, or whatever word you want to use). Has the unit been returned to play, yes or no? If not, then is the Lord still scoring, yes or no? Can the Lord be targeted for purposes of the Repair Barge special rule (assuming he was attached to Warriors), yes or no?

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
The unit dies as they cannot take a RP roll per the Necron Codex. The Lord however, would get a chance because he is removed as a casualty from the SA. There are no rules contradictions. Everything happens as it should. Think of EL as a RP that does not require a unit to be around it to work.

So the Lord isn't part of the unit that cannot be rescued?

It's very plain man I don't see why you continue to argue against a GW FAQ. You may not like it but that is how it is.

I'm not arguing against the FAQ at all. It doesn't apply here.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, no, no. You keep skipping the plain fact that the unit is actually destroyed by the Sweeping Advance. I can't continue with this line of argument anymore, so its been fun, sir!

I'm not skipping that. At all. I've addressed that literally every time you accuse me of skipping it.

Perhaps you'd actually like to address my argument instead of accusing me of doing something I'm demonstrably not? That'd be great.

OK...last post from me. You can have the last word.

Here is the precise point at which your line of argument falls apart:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because when the unit is placed back on the table you've rescued it from being destroyed. Meaning that placing the marker is an attempt to save the unit from being destroyed.

This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

You cannot even place an EL marker on the board UNLESS THE MODEL IS REMOVED AS A CASUALTY.

The reason I keep saying this over and over (and over and over) is that you keep ignoring it, then you say that you are not ignoring it....the definition of "willfull ignorance".

 jasper76 wrote:
This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

If the models is destroyed, it's not on the table. You're putting it on the table. You're contradicting yourself.

The reason I keep saying this over and over (and over and over) is that you keep ignoring it, then you say that you are not ignoring it....the definition of "willfull ignorance".

I'm not ignoring it. I've agreed that the SA removes the models from the table.
You're the one saying that putting them back isn't rescuing them.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

If the models is destroyed, it's not on the table. You're putting it on the table. You're contradicting yourself.

The reason I keep saying this over and over (and over and over) is that you keep ignoring it, then you say that you are not ignoring it....the definition of "willfull ignorance".

I'm not ignoring it. I've agreed that the SA removes the models from the table.
You're the one saying that putting them back isn't rescuing them.

wouldn't the premise of "rescuing" the models need to happen before they get killed ?

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

If the models is destroyed, it's not on the table. You're putting it on the table. You're contradicting yourself.

It's NOT on the table dude. It's destroyed by the Sweeping Advance and taken off the table. DEAD, GONE, DESTROYED, ADIOS.

Taking it off the table triggers the Ever Living rule. Ever Living is not a save, nor is it a rescue. If it was, it would have prevented the Sweeping Advance from killing the unit. It is a rule that allows DEAD, GONE, DESTROYED, ADIOS models to come back onto the table.

Until you accept and get past the plain fact that the Sweeping Advance makes the unit DEAD, GONE, DESTROYED, ADIOS, you won't understand that Ever Living works on models that are DEAD, GONE, DESTROYED, ADIOS.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, no, no. You keep skipping the plain fact that the unit is actually destroyed by the Sweeping Advance. I can't continue with this line of argument anymore, so its been fun, sir!

I'm not skipping that. At all. I've addressed that literally every time you accuse me of skipping it.

Perhaps you'd actually like to address my argument instead of accusing me of doing something I'm demonstrably not? That'd be great.

OK...last post from me. You can have the last word.

Here is the precise point at which your line of argument falls apart:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because when the unit is placed back on the table you've rescued it from being destroyed. Meaning that placing the marker is an attempt to save the unit from being destroyed.

This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

You cannot even place an EL marker on the board UNLESS THE MODEL IS REMOVED AS A CASUALTY.

The reason I keep saying this over and over (and over and over) is that you keep ignoring it, then you say that you are not ignoring it....the definition of "willfull ignorance".

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I think what he is saying, is that because the Lord is, in fact, killed by the sweeping advance, you are not attempting to save him by using the EL roll to bring him back. He isn't saved. He is killed. Dead. Gone. Aidios. Goodbye. Checkmate. Shed loose the mortal coil. Therefore the SA resolves, and at the end of the phase, the EL roll is made.

Also, I have been reading the thread. It is honestly a good source of humor for me because you aren't really arguing anymore. You've been clearly beaten. So no need to be all bitter. You can't argue the FAQ. You certainly cannot argue the resolution step of the SA. So why exactly do you continue to argue?

Ok, let's just stop with the IS - IS NOT argument here as it will get nowhere.

If both of you agree fully that the model is "fully removed", then explain to me - with rules to support yourself, why i cannot get 2 Slay the warlord points?
And 2 point on purge the alien?

I have ultimately destroyed the Lord on turn 4, and killed another lord, not the saved one, not the one rescued, to get another Kill point on turn 5.

If you decide that i only get 1 Kill point, then you are showing me this is "the same" Lord, with "the same equipment" who has somehow come back.
If he has returned, as per a special rule, like Ever-Living, then you are breaking the SA rule that states that the model that was swept is now out of the game.

 BlackTalos wrote:
Ok, let's just stop with the IS - IS NOT argument here as it will get nowhere.

If both of you agree fully that the model is "fully removed", then explain to me - with rules to support yourself, why i cannot get 2 Slay the warlord points?
And 2 point on purge the alien?

I have ultimately destroyed the Lord on turn 4, and killed another lord, not the saved one, not the one rescued, to get another Kill point on turn 5.

If you decide that i only get 1 Kill point, then you are showing me this is "the same" Lord, with "the same equipment" who has somehow come back.
If he has returned, as per a special rule, like Ever-Living, then you are breaking the SA rule that states that the model that was swept is now out of the game.

"Unless otherwise specified..."

"for them, the battle is over" is trumped by the Ever Living special rule.

As for Kill Points, I won't pretend to know the answer to that question.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

If the models is destroyed, it's not on the table. You're putting it on the table. You're contradicting yourself.

The reason I keep saying this over and over (and over and over) is that you keep ignoring it, then you say that you are not ignoring it....the definition of "willfull ignorance".

I'm not ignoring it. I've agreed that the SA removes the models from the table.
You're the one saying that putting them back isn't rescuing them.

wouldn't the premise of "rescuing" the models need to happen before they get killed ?

Not at all. The unit ceases to exist and then exists again. It was rescued from death.

You're captured and imprisoned on a space station bigger than (but oft confused as) a moon. I board the station and disguise myself as a local soldier. I get you out of your cell - I've rescued you, but I wasn't there before you were captured.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Until you accept and get past the plain fact that the Sweeping Advance makes the unit DEAD, GONE, DESTROYED, ADIOS, you won't understand that Ever Living works on models that are DEAD, GONE, DESTROYED, ADIOS.

So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified..."

"for them, the battle is over" is trumped by the Ever Living special rule.

Where does EL specify (remember the definition) otherwise that SA doesn't apply?

As for Kill Points, I won't pretend to know the answer to that question.

You need to answer it as it's absolutely relevant to the discussion.

 Happyjew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Point 4 - This has already been FAQ'd
"Q: If an entire unit. including an attached character from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol roll?
A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out."

Counterpoint - That still does not specify EL works against SA. Therefore it does not.

I am guessing this is the "FAQ covers it" part you are referring to?

Because you are wiped out by a lot of shots, Dangerous terrain, close combat and many other things.

This is a fluff argument, but Sweeping Advance is not Wiping out the unit: You are just capturing all of them because you play Dark Eldar. How can you resurrect from being captured?


PS: RaW side of it seems clear though - "for them the battle is over" - no being on the table for this game.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Point 4 - This has already been FAQ'd
"Q: If an entire unit. including an attached character from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol roll?
A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out."

Counterpoint - That still does not specify EL works against SA. Therefore it does not.

I am guessing this is the "FAQ covers it" part you are referring to?

Because you are wiped out by a lot of shots, Dangerous terrain, close combat and many other things.

This is a fluff argument, but Sweeping Advance is not Wiping out the unit: You are just capturing all of them because you play Dark Eldar. How can you resurrect from being captured?


PS: RaW side of it seems clear though - "for them the battle is over" - no being on the table for this game.

All of your models are removed as casualties from a sweepiong advance. If that is not "wiping out" a unit, then I don't know hat is, and lets stop right here, because we won't ever agree on this without an FAQ for the FAQ.

RAW, Ever Living trumps BRB "for them the battle is over".

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

No - it's absolutely relevant to the conversation. Please answer the question.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

However that is very important as rigeld points out: Either
A) New unit - this just break the game completely, so it is a bit of a trick question.
B) The same unit.

Now in this case you really have to answer B, because A does not work. If you pick B however, this means that the same Lord, you HQ choice has come back to life.

He is back onto the table.
He exists again after a rule in the Warhammer rulebook has clearly said that he cannot ever exist on the table again:

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

That one line from the Rulebook says that nothing can return in any way: "no (...) other special rule can rescue the unit", a special rule like Ever-Living for example.

Unless of course, it is "otherwise specified". Like, for example, the space marine "They shall know no fear" rule. Have you read that rule? If someone quotes it, you will understand how Sweeping Advance is "otherwise specified".

I hope this helps.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

No - it's absolutely relevant to the conversation. Please answer the question.

I did dude. "I don't know" is an answer.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

No - it's absolutely relevant to the conversation. Please answer the question.

I did dude. "I don't know" is an answer.

Honestly, I don't think that's true. For you to have a valid standing in this discussion you have to be able to answer relevant questions. "I don't know" as an answer to a question that can make or break your argument isn't acceptable.

Please take some time to think about it and answer with a yes or no.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
This is just dead wrong. Plain and simple. By placing an Ever Living marker, and later in the game successfully rolling your EL for that marker, you are NOT rescuing the model from being destroyed. THE MODEL IS DESTROYED.

If the models is destroyed, it's not on the table. You're putting it on the table. You're contradicting yourself.

The reason I keep saying this over and over (and over and over) is that you keep ignoring it, then you say that you are not ignoring it....the definition of "willfull ignorance".

I'm not ignoring it. I've agreed that the SA removes the models from the table.
You're the one saying that putting them back isn't rescuing them.

wouldn't the premise of "rescuing" the models need to happen before they get killed ?

Not at all. The unit ceases to exist and then exists again. It was rescued from death.

You're captured and imprisoned on a space station bigger than (but oft confused as) a moon. I board the station and disguise myself as a local soldier. I get you out of your cell - I've rescued you, but I wasn't there before you were captured.

But i can still say i was captured . You did not rescue me from being captured , i was in a cell . You freed me from my cell . we then left the station . You freed me from imprisonment , you did not rescue me form being captured

Or read my post above because it's a trick question

I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

However that is very important as rigeld points out: Either
A) New unit - this just break the game completely, so it is a bit of a trick question.
B) The same unit.

Now in this case you really have to answer B, because A does not work. If you pick B however, this means that the same Lord, you HQ choice has come back to life.

He is back onto the table.
He exists again after a rule in the Warhammer rulebook has clearly said that he cannot ever exist on the table again:

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

That one line from the Rulebook says that nothing can return in any way: "no (...) other special rule can rescue the unit", a special rule like Ever-Living for example.

Unless of course, it is "otherwise specified". Like, for example, the space marine "They shall know no fear" rule. Have you read that rule? If someone quotes it, you will understand how Sweeping Advance is "otherwise specified".

I hope this helps.

The Space Marine example is not relevant, as the Space Marine example is not a global rule.

So, but thankfully we are back to the interesting point here.

"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

Forget the fluff...the only thing that matters here is "removed from the game as a casulaty". This is the specific RAW trigger to lay down an Ever Living counter.

Jasper - all this has shown is you do not understand what "specify" means, at all. It is a very basic concept that, even when shown the definition of, you are still failing to grasp.

Read ATSKNF. Notice how it. Mentions SA? Understand - THAT is what specific means. EL works against any source of REmove as a Casualty. That is the general rule. SA is a very specific rule.

RAW for them the battle is over. That unit that was removd cannot be placed back on the table.

Your argument is refuted, please mark your posts as hywpi, as they are not RAW

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

And again, please quote the words that specify (I quoted the definition, remember it) otherwise to what the SA rule states.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

The 'Everliving' rule clearly uses the term 'returned to play'. How can you 'return to play' a model that wasn't in play to begin with? You can't. It is the same model that was removed from play by the Sweeping Advance. Its not immaterial to the discussion as there is nothing that states that you can't 'save' a unit after it has been removed as a casualty. If it is back on the board taking an active part in the game then it does qualify as being saved.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

Forget the fluff...the only thing that matters here is "removed from the game as a casulaty". This is the specific RAW trigger to lay down an Ever Living counter.

So another rule - rescue - is fluff now? Exactly how many rules will you remove until you get your intended result?

 jasper76 wrote:
The Space Marine example is not relevant, as the Space Marine example is not a global rule.

So, but thankfully we are back to the interesting point here.

"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

I cannot answer that unless you read the Space Marine "They shall know no Fear" special rule, or someone here is kind enough to quote it.

That rule specifies exactly how Space Marine can actually survive a Sweeping Advance.

No other model (trust me i play Saint Celestine) can ever survive being Swept but Space Marine - Because they have a rule that says so - Necrons don't unfortunately.

 milkboy wrote:
Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

Once again, you are the font of wisdom. I said I would give others the last word, and now I mean it.

A bit of parting advice to my debate opponents...you won't find many, if any, Necron players that share your opinion on whether a character gets Ever Living after a Sweeping Advance. If you want to press the issue, bring all your rules and FAQs, and be prepared to rehash this same exact debate over and over again. At best, you may get someone to roll off on the question after a long while of probably unpleasant conversation.

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

no where in what you posted was this true
If i die from a sudden heart attack , because i eat 4 corn dogs a day , and the doctors say indeed that i died , but they use the paddles and zap my heart back to functioning , did i die ? did i get rescued from having the heart attack ? did i get rescued form death ? no i didn't because i still had the heart attack . I wasn't rescued from death either ,i had the heart attack and was pronounced dead .
BTW real world or fictional examples like these are poor examples at best , they may go over better if you labled each part with actual RaW

If you ask Rick Grimes, he'll tell you bringing you back from the dead is not really saving you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

And again, please quote the words that specify (I quoted the definition, remember it) otherwise to what the SA rule states.

SA removes a unit from play as a casualty. When a model with EL is removed as a casualty, that is a specific trigger to lay down an the Ever Living counter.

It's all right there, and we've been over this. SA section does NOT say "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance".

Unless you can find a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance..." then your argument holds no weight with this guy.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

Forget the fluff...the only thing that matters here is "removed from the game as a casulaty". This is the specific RAW trigger to lay down an Ever Living counter.

Sure, if you ignore the rest of the rule.
Figured out an answer to my question yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

And again, please quote the words that specify (I quoted the definition, remember it) otherwise to what the SA rule states.

SA removes a unit from play as a casualty. When a model with EL is removed as a casualty, that is a specific trigger to lay down an the Ever Living counter.

It's all right there, and we've been over this. SA section does NOT say "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance".

Unless you can find a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance..." then your argument holds no weight with this guy.

So you're ignoring what specify means?
"identify clearly and definitely."
It's obvious that it's not clearly and definitely identified. So it's not specifically stated otherwise.
If only there was another rule that does clearly identify it works to sa-

p33 wrote:If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat instead.

Holy smokes! There's one! It specifically talks about SA.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

no where in what you posted was this true
If i die from a sudden heart attack , because i eat 4 corn dogs a day , and the doctors say indeed that i died , but they use the paddles and zap my heart back to functioning , did i die ? did i get rescued from having the heart attack ? did i get rescued form death ? no i didn't because i still had the heart attack . I wasn't rescued from death either ,i had the heart attack and was pronounced dead .
BTW real world or fictional examples like these are poor examples at best , they may go over better if you labled each part with actual RaW

Three flowers in a field will define how the 2 clouds will never touch the ground, i agree!

On a more serious note, Ever-Living uses the words "returned to play" as Ghaz points out - "no (...) special rule can rescue the unit" -

Return and Rescue are pretty much the same in this case: a Model removed from the board comes back onto the board.

 jasper76 wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

Once again, you are the font of wisdom. I said I would give others the last word, and now I mean it.

A bit of parting advice to my debate opponents...you won't find many, if any, Necron players that share your opinion on whether a character gets Ever Living after a Sweeping Advance. If you want to press the issue, bring all your rules and FAQs, and be prepared to rehash this same exact debate over and over again. At best, you may get someone to roll off on the question after a long while of probably unpleasant conversation.

Every necron player I have ever met, including myself, disagree on your assessment therre. Probably 50 or so over the couple of years of 6th

But then, they're no capable of understanding what "specifically" means, and can apply it to the rules. And they don't ignore inconvenient rules claiming "fluff"

 BlackTalos wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

no where in what you posted was this true
If i die from a sudden heart attack , because i eat 4 corn dogs a day , and the doctors say indeed that i died , but they use the paddles and zap my heart back to functioning , did i die ? did i get rescued from having the heart attack ? did i get rescued form death ? no i didn't because i still had the heart attack . I wasn't rescued from death either ,i had the heart attack and was pronounced dead .
BTW real world or fictional examples like these are poor examples at best , they may go over better if you labled each part with actual RaW

Three flowers in a field will define how the 2 clouds will never touch the ground, i agree!

On a more serious note, Ever-Living uses the words "returned to play" as Ghaz points out - "no (...) special rule can rescue the unit" -

Return and Rescue are pretty much the same in this case: a Model removed from the board comes back onto the board.

as i pointed out , if you intent to rescue something , you are preventing something. ( dang you for making me do the next example )
I am about to get shot by a firing squad , READY , AIM , you swing form a rope , grab me and we go out through a open window. Did i get shot ? no . Did you rescue me form getting shot ? Yes . Now lets return to 40k
Did model get removed as a casualty ? Yes
Was it rescued ? No
Returning to play , is returning to play not rescueing

Good job it talks about the unit being rescued, and not the model. And you're still ignoring the inconvenience of the rule "for them, the battle is over"
For the unit the battle is over. You're trying to ignore that, which is a bad thing in a rules debate

rigeld2 wrote:

p33 wrote:If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat instead.

These entire 12 pages come down to: does Ever-living specify what happens due to Sweeping Advance? No, because above is the example of another rule that does specify. So Sweeping advance is "Unaffected" and the models "for them the battle is over".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

Once again, you are the font of wisdom. I said I would give others the last word, and now I mean it.

A bit of parting advice to my debate opponents...you won't find many, if any, Necron players that share your opinion on whether a character gets Ever Living after a Sweeping Advance. If you want to press the issue, bring all your rules and FAQs, and be prepared to rehash this same exact debate over and over again. At best, you may get someone to roll off on the question after a long while of probably unpleasant conversation.

Every necron player I have ever met, including myself, disagree on your assessment therre. Probably 50 or so over the couple of years of 6th

But then, they're no capable of understanding what "specifically" means, and can apply it to the rules. And they don't ignore inconvenient rules claiming "fluff"

OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p33 wrote:If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat instead.

These entire 12 pages come down to: does Ever-living specify what happens due to Sweeping Advance? No, because above is the example of another rule that does specify. So Sweeping advance is "Unaffected" and the models "for them the battle is over".

No...you are quoting an example taht applies to what? Space Marines? Its not a global rule.

Indeed. Cue wilful misunderstanding of the word "specific" (or cries that rules are now fluff) in 3....2.....

Edit: damn, didn't even get to "1" before the wilful ignorance of a word was shown. I must type quicker.

kambien wrote:
as i pointed out , if you intent to rescue something , you are preventing something. ( dang you for making me do the next example )
I am about to get shot by a firing squad , READY , AIM , you swing form a rope , grab me and we go out through a open window. Did i get shot ? no . Did you rescue me form getting shot ? Yes . Now lets return to 40k
Did model get removed as a casualty ? Yes
Was it rescued ? No
Returning to play , is returning to play not rescueing

Would you agree you are bringing back the model to a former state or condition?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed. Cue wilful misunderstanding of the word "specific" (or cries that rules are now fluff) in 3....2.....

Edit: damn, didn't even get to "1" before the wilful ignorance of a word was shown. I must type quicker.

Dude, lets put the animosity aside.

Can you answer my question?

Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language. Meaning the two forms, in context, are identical. In order to BE specific it HAS to mention SA, otherwise it isn't specific, it is general.

I even tried explaining specific vs general to you, by pointing out you don't get much more specific than EL - it applies to any RaC, whereas SA is far more constrained and specific.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

Not animosity, just incredulity. Next you will be claiming,using the same logic, that a model that has disembarked from an assault vehicle can now assault, even if it came on from reserves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

I'm just gonna play this game until you anwer my question.

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No...you are quoting an example taht applies to what? Space Marines? Its not a global rule.

It is not a global rule: It is a Special Rule that Specifies how they are affected by Sweeping Advance.

Basically, that Space marine Rule says: If Sweeping Advance, then (B) happens

Ever-Living does not specifically say that.

"Unless otherwise specified", inside a Special Rule, means that you have to say that special rule does (X) to your Special Rule.

I can list a very long list of "specified" rules if that helps? Every time it says what rule (B) does.

 jasper76 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

I'm just gonna play this game until you anwer my question.

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

Already answered., have you read ATSKNF yet. Do you have the vaguest idea what "specific" means now, especially after given an exactly pertinent example?

 jasper76 wrote:
Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

"There is no need for one because it does it automatically"

 Happyjew wrote:

kambien wrote:
as i pointed out , if you intent to rescue something , you are preventing something. ( dang you for making me do the next example )
I am about to get shot by a firing squad , READY , AIM , you swing form a rope , grab me and we go out through a open window. Did i get shot ? no . Did you rescue me form getting shot ? Yes . Now lets return to 40k
Did model get removed as a casualty ? Yes
Was it rescued ? No
Returning to play , is returning to play not rescueing

Would you agree you are bringing back the model to a former state or condition?

i'm not sure , i don't have the everlivng ruleset to compare against

The rules have been quoted oft enough in this thread, that making that claim is telling on how much you have done others the courtesy of reading, and understanding, the thread so far

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

I'm just gonna play this game until you anwer my question.

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

Already answered., have you read ATSKNF yet. Do you have the vaguest idea what "specific" means now, especially after given an exactly pertinent example?

You have not answered my question at all. I'd be happy to hear an answer...its just a Yes or No question (although if the answer is Yes, please point me to the rule because I'd honestly like to know about it).

Specific (adjective)
1. having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.
2. specified, precise, or particular: a specific sum of money.
3. peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc.: His specific problems got him into trouble.
4. of a special or particular kind.
5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named (used in combination): The Secretary addressed himself to crop-specific problems.

Ever Living in this case meets definition 1, 2, 3, and 4...and probably 5

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules have been quoted oft enough in this thread, that making that claim is telling on how much you have done others the courtesy of reading, and understanding, the thread so far

omg you speaking about rules quote . No i have not seen the everliving rule quoted in its entire verbiage yet

Incorrect, look backs few posts.

So that's a no to reading ATSKNF then?

Good to hear, failure to follow tenets noted, your "argument" is "hywpi" and nothing more. I will not respond further as you are not making a rules argument.

 jasper76 wrote:

Specific (adjective)
1. having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.
2. specified, precise, or particular: a specific sum of money.
3. peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc.: His specific problems got him into trouble.
4. of a special or particular kind.
5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named (used in combination): The Secretary addressed himself to crop-specific problems.

Ever Living in this case meets definition 1, 2, 3, and 4...and probably 5

It doesn't meet 1 - it doesn't explicitly state any special interaction with SA.
It doesn't meet 2 - it doesn't mention SA at all.
3 doesn't really apply at all.
Neither does 4.
It doesn't meet 5 - it doesn't mention SA at all.

You're confusing general with specific. In general, EL returns models to play. Find where it specifically returns after SA.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules have been quoted oft enough in this thread, that making that claim is telling on how much you have done others the courtesy of reading, and understanding, the thread so far

omg you speaking about rules quote . No i have not seen the everliving rule quoted in its entire verbiage yet

So you cannot actually comment on this argument then? Please, either find the relevant rules in this thread, or look them up elsewhere - likely on this site. An assumption that you had the rules was made given you were so insistent on commenting on them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts.

So that's a no to reading ATSKNF then?

Good to hear, failure to follow tenets noted, your "argument" is "hywpi" and nothing more. I will not respond further as you are not making a rules argument.

No...not for any kind of willful ingorance of your point...I just don't have the book in front of me.

Is ATSKNF a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

If not, you're just providing an example, not a rule, and therefore you are not answering my question.

I'd really like an answer...I've answered all of your questins (I hope)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts..

do you refuse to post quoted rules because you don't like the tenants of the forum or just out of spite ?

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

I don't know. The answer might not be acceptable to you, but its an answer and its the truth.

Would you rather that I lie to you and pretend I do know the answer.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts..

do you refuse to post quoted rules because you don't like the tenants of the forum or just out of spite ?

"Tenets"

The rules were posted. I won't do your work for you. "Spite"? Really? Reported for rule 1

jasper76 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, look backs few posts.

So that's a no to reading ATSKNF then?

Good to hear, failure to follow tenets noted, your "argument" is "hywpi" and nothing more. I will not respond further as you are not making a rules argument.

No...not for any kind of willful ingorance of your point...I just don't have the book in front of me.

The EXACT rule was posted, and referenced to being posted , just a page or so back. I'd suggest you review it

[quote
Is ATSKNF a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

I don't know. The answer might not be acceptable to you, but its an answer and its the truth.

Would you rather that I lie to you and pretend I do know the answer.

Then take some time and think about the answer. Being unprepared to answer a relevant question and refusing to actually answer it isn't the right way to engage in a proper debate.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is the unit destroyed by SA the same as the one you are attempting to return to the table?
"I don't know" isn't an acceptable answer, and that's all you've given so far. Please actually answer this question - it's extremely relevant.

I don't know. The answer might not be acceptable to you, but its an answer and its the truth.

Would you rather that I lie to you and pretend I do know the answer.

Then stop commenting on rescued, as you clearly are incapable of assessing whether the unit was rescued or not.
or are you still considering rescued to be fluff?

If the mods don't close this thread I need to get some popcorn.

Again, this has been answered by GW's FAQ and should not be an issue.

Semantics and GW's crappy editing can be argued forever.

Naw wrote:
Again, this has been answered by GW's FAQ and should not be an issue.

No, it hasn't.