Like usual, after every game we seem to have scenarios that pop up that no one can seem to answer definitively.
1) Eternal Warrior Vs Labyrinth: for those of you who dont know, Labyrinth is a necron ability (on a roll of 4+ enemy model in base contact is removed as a casualty). How would this work with Eternal Warrior?
2) Labyrinth Vs Who Won combat: Say for example Labyrinth kills a librarian with 2W. Would the 2W go towards the amount of wounds inflicted?
3) Sweeping advance vs Everliving: Im sure this is a simple on, would necrons get a chance to re animate after a sweep?
4) MSS: an Honor Guard gets hit with MSS, he has a Relic Blade (ap3) and a Power Ax (ap2), who gets to choose what weapon he strikes with?

Thanks!

Texanity wrote:Like usual, after every game we seem to have scenarios that pop up that no one can seem to answer definitively.
1) Eternal Warrior Vs Labyrinth: for those of you who dont know, Labyrinth is a necron ability (on a roll of 4+ enemy model in base contact is removed as a casualty). How would this work with Eternal Warrior?
2) Labyrinth Vs Who Won combat: Say for example Labyrinth kills a librarian with 2W. Would the 2W go towards the amount of wounds inflicted?
3) Sweeping advance vs Everliving: Im sure this is a simple on, would necrons get a chance to re animate after a sweep?
4) MSS: an Honor Guard gets hit with MSS, he has a Relic Blade (ap3) and a Power Ax (ap2), who gets to choose what weapon he strikes with?

Thanks!

1. Eternal Warrior ignores the effects of Instant Death. There is a difference between being removed as a casualty and suffering from ID. The end result is the same, but you follow two different roads to get there. ID is achieved two ways: being hit by a weapon whose strength is double your toughness, or being hit by a weapon/ability with the ID special rule. Even with EW you are still removed as a casualty since you did not suffer ID.

2. Since no unsaved Wounds are caused (being removed as a casualty is not the same as having your wounds reduced to 0, (again end result is the same but a different path was taken to get there) you do not count the wounds for the Assault results. "To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents."

3. No. Once the unit is destroyed you cannot use Reanimation Protocols anymore.

4. "These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength, and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which, if there is a choice." Pretty clear if you ask me.

As above. You will get people arguing about 3, but being told that AGAIN, 3 editions in a row that no special rule can save them - RP / EL being special rules - means that no special rule can save them.

3 In 6th edition sweeping advance rule has changed. It now specifically removes models as casualties so EL can be applied. RP cannot be applied because the RP counters are removed when the Morale test is failed.

copper.talos wrote:3 In 6th edition sweeping advance rule has changed. It now specifically removes models as casualties so EL can be applied. RP cannot be applied because the RP counters are removed when the Morale test is failed.

Truth. That is all.

Captain Antivas wrote:

copper.talos wrote:3 In 6th edition sweeping advance rule has changed. It now specifically removes models as casualties so EL can be applied. RP cannot be applied because the RP counters are removed when the Morale test is failed.

False. RP counters are removed when the unit is destroyed, not when they fall back. If the unit falls back and is not caught in a sweeping advance they can test for RP as normal. If they are caught in a sweeping advance they are destroyed and cannot test for RP.

Copper is actually right on this one.
Per the Necron Codex pg 29: "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it -- any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy.

I will not comment on EL vs SA as I don't have the rulebook on me.

Icemyn wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

copper.talos wrote:3 In 6th edition sweeping advance rule has changed. It now specifically removes models as casualties so EL can be applied. RP cannot be applied because the RP counters are removed when the Morale test is failed.

False. RP counters are removed when the unit is destroyed, not when they fall back. If the unit falls back and is not caught in a sweeping advance they can test for RP as normal. If they are caught in a sweeping advance they are destroyed and cannot test for RP.

Copper is actually right on this one.
Per the Necron Codex pg 29: "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it -- any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy.

I will not comment on EL vs SA as I don't have the rulebook on me.

OMG, how did I miss that? Thanks for the update.

copper.talos wrote:3 In 6th edition sweeping advance rule has changed. It now specifically removes models as casualties so EL can be applied. RP cannot be applied because the RP counters are removed when the Morale test is failed.

NO SPECIAL RULES may save the unit. The unit is destroyed. Are you trying to rescue the unit from being destroyed? Arey ou doing it with a special rule? Then you have broken a rule.

It is the same rule as 5th, with regards the restrictions on rescuing a unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:3 In 6th edition sweeping advance rule has changed. It now specifically removes models as casualties so EL can be applied. RP cannot be applied because the RP counters are removed when the Morale test is failed.

NO SPECIAL RULES may save the unit. The unit is destroyed. Are you trying to rescue the unit from being destroyed? Arey ou doing it with a special rule? Then you have broken a rule.

It is the same rule as 5th, with regards the restrictions on rescuing a unit.

So basically nothing has changed with the SA vs EL Ruling from 5th to 6th? Good times. Let the games begin.

3. You can use EL after a sweeping advance. You have to place the token and then make the roll as normal. The unit that swept might prevent you from being able to return with their consolidation move.

Fragile wrote:3. You can use EL after a sweeping advance. You have to place the token and then make the roll as normal. The unit that swept might prevent you from being able to return with their consolidation move.

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

EL is a special rule that does not specify otherwise.

Models with EL are gone as well.

"at this stage" is the key part. Nothing can save from the sweeping advance, but EL models are rolled for at the end of the phase.

The problem is that EL works when a model is removed as a casualty. SA specifically says that the model is removed as a casualty. To be honest the argument holds more weight then in 5th ed when the model was simply removed. Does not necessarily mean I agree with it however.

Fragile wrote:"at this stage" is the key part. Nothing can save from the sweeping advance, but EL models are rolled for at the end of the phase.

This is the exact same wording as 4th AND 5th edition.

In 4th edition WBB was the canonical example of a special rule that didnt work. WBB worked an entire TURN later, potentially. So youre saying they were wrong, all along, with WBB?

Nothing can save the unit at this stage means that, by the time you reach this point nothing can save the unit. It does not mean that nothing can save the unit at this point, but can do so later on.

Just out of curiosity nos, did 4th ed SA remove the models as casualties, or just remove them? I know in 5th ed the unit was removed, in 6th ed they are RFPaaC.

It just removed the unit. It didnt alter that the line about no special rules was where WBB was mentioned, which is where the proponents of lets-twist "at this stage" to mean somethigng else are claiming EL can have any effect.

The main reason I can find that WBB would not have worked (and the same reason EL wouldn't work in 5th ed) is due to the fact they require the model to be removed as a casualty.
In 4th ed and 5th ed, Sweeping Advance simply removed the model from play. Now however, Sweeping Advance specifically states that the model is removed as a casualty. This to me says that anything that can be used when removed as a casualty (such as MI or EL) can in fact be used if the model is removed via Sweeping Advance.

Edit: nos I already know your rebuttal is most likely going to be about the saving the unit "at this stage" part. However, if you feel the need to post it...

Except it specifies that NO SPECIAL RULE may save the unit at this stage

EL is a special rule

WBB was disallowed from working BECAUSE it is a special rule

The fact you are removed as casualties has no bearing on this. The important part is "no special rule" and "specify". WBB and EL/RP never specify, so they dont work.

I no longer have those FAQs, but I am curious did they give a reason why it would not work, or are you just inferring that the reason they said no is because it is a special rule?

Not trying to start anything I really am curious about this.

"Unless otherwise stated, no special rule (such as WBB) may save the unit at this time" is the rough quote. No inferring required, it was the canonical *example* of the special rule that doesnt work.

AS stated: Being removed as a casualty has no bearing on this, it is that NO SPECIAL RULE may save them.

Is that from the FAQ, or from the rulebook?

Also = not a FAQ, it was the 4th ed rulebook.

The FAQ documents are freely available online, so if you can post here you still have it. To make it easy here it is.

The BYB says that a unit caught in a Sweeping Advance is immediately removed as casualties and that, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise, no special rule can save the unit. The Necron FAQ doesn't change the special rules for Reanimation Protocol or Ever Living and the special rules don't specify that they can save a unit from a Sweeping Advance. Hence the unit is toast.

For a fluffy perspective, a Sweeping Advance is kind of like one unit breaking and getting chopped to tiny bits by the other. Basically it simulates things like blood lust, or going around staking "dead" vampires to make sure they stay down. Hence why EL/RP don't save you.

I was referring to the older FAQs not the current 6th ed ones. I (nor anyone at my LFGS) play Necrons so I don't have a stake in this. Also if you look back at the last time EL and SA came up my argument was always the not removed as a casualty. I never brought up the special rules saving the unit. At least I don't think I did.

EL would, if passed, save the unit, which is against the rules of SA

The unit cannot be saved by a special rule, unless the rule specifies it works against SA. Like ATSKNF

EL/RP do not specify they work against SA, so they dont.

So what about Miraculous Intervention?

Captain Antivas wrote:

Texanity wrote:Like usual, after every game we seem to have scenarios that pop up that no one can seem to answer definitively.
1) Eternal Warrior Vs Labyrinth: for those of you who dont know, Labyrinth is a necron ability (on a roll of 4+ enemy model in base contact is removed as a casualty). How would this work with Eternal Warrior?
2) Labyrinth Vs Who Won combat: Say for example Labyrinth kills a librarian with 2W. Would the 2W go towards the amount of wounds inflicted?
3) Sweeping advance vs Everliving: Im sure this is a simple on, would necrons get a chance to re animate after a sweep?
4) MSS: an Honor Guard gets hit with MSS, he has a Relic Blade (ap3) and a Power Ax (ap2), who gets to choose what weapon he strikes with?

Thanks!

1. Eternal Warrior ignores the effects of Instant Death. There is a difference between being removed as a casualty and suffering from ID. The end result is the same, but you follow two different roads to get there. ID is achieved two ways: being hit by a weapon whose strength is double your toughness, or being hit by a weapon/ability with the ID special rule. Even with EW you are still removed as a casualty since you did not suffer ID.

2. Since no unsaved Wounds are caused (being removed as a casualty is not the same as having your wounds reduced to 0, (again end result is the same but a different path was taken to get there) you do not count the wounds for the Assault results. "To decide who has won the combat, total up the number of unsaved Wounds inflicted by each side onto their opponents."

3. No. Once the unit is destroyed you cannot use Reanimation Protocols anymore.

4. "These hits are resolved at the victim's Strength, and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons (the controller of the mindshackle scarabs chooses which, if there is a choice." Pretty clear if you ask me.

I know there's a fight about RP/EL and SA going on in here, I just wanted to clarify on your post that Ever Living units always get to roll to come back (except for SA, IMO) even if the unit they were in is destroyed by Non-SA means.

Though I do still have a reservation about EL models that are already replaced by the counter by the time SA happens, I think they should still get to come back but I don't think that's how it would be ruled as if GW ever clarified for us. So, I just play it as SA removes everything (except fearless guys and, of course, space marines).

Kevin949 wrote:[

I know there's a fight about RP/EL and SA going on in here, I just wanted to clarify on your post that Ever Living units always get to roll to come back (except for SA, IMO) even if the unit they were in is destroyed by Non-SA means.

Though I do still have a reservation about EL models that are already replaced by the counter by the time SA happens, I think they should still get to come back but I don't think that's how it would be ruled as if GW ever clarified for us. So, I just play it as SA removes everything (except fearless guys and, of course, space marines).

Just a side note, Fearless models never fall back from combat and thus cannot be swept.

Happyjew wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

I know there's a fight about RP/EL and SA going on in here, I just wanted to clarify on your post that Ever Living units always get to roll to come back (except for SA, IMO) even if the unit they were in is destroyed by Non-SA means.

Though I do still have a reservation about EL models that are already replaced by the counter by the time SA happens, I think they should still get to come back but I don't think that's how it would be ruled as if GW ever clarified for us. So, I just play it as SA removes everything (except fearless guys and, of course, space marines).

Just a side note, Fearless models never fall back from combat and thus cannot be swept.

Ok...how is that different from what I said? Sorry, not being a smartass here I just don't see the need for the clarification.

Reading what you wrote implies (to me anyway) that nothing happens if a fearless unit gets caught in a sweeping advance. A unit can never attempt to sweep a Fearless unit as it will never fall back from combat.

If that is not what you were saying, my apologies.

Happyjew wrote:Reading what you wrote implies (to me anyway) that nothing happens if a fearless unit gets caught in a sweeping advance. A unit can never attempt to sweep a Fearless unit as it will never fall back from combat.

If that is not what you were saying, my apologies.

Ah, ok, I see it now. Ya, sorry, I just meant more that those types of units can't get sweeping advanced, I didn't really want to go into the particulars of "why" they can't. Wasn't really relevant to the thread. Thanks for the clarify in case someone else interpreted it that way too.

The 6th edition rulebook says no special rule or ability can rescue them, for them the battle is over. Seems pretty final to me.

Unit falls back and gets away, no RP but yes EL.
Unit falls back and gets swept up in a SA, no RP or EL.

Captain Antivas wrote:The 6th edition rulebook says no special rule or ability can rescue them, for them the battle is over. Seems pretty final to me.

Unit falls back and gets away, no RP but yes EL.
Unit falls back and gets swept up in a SA, no RP or EL.

Like I said, I agree with you. But as I said, my contention with the rules is if the EL model is "already" dead when SA happens...meaning, he is an "EL Token" at combat resolution. Is he still part of the squad as a token?

I play it as yes, as I do not want to come across as TFG with my buddies. I also know that most or all TO's and most likely GW (if ever clarified by them) would say the same. But as it stands, I'm just not sure. I'm also not arguing that point, just putting it out there.

Oh I know. I.was just putting my opinion out there not replying to anyone in particular. And of course the faq is no help.

It really comes down to a couple things.

Nothing can "save" them. No armor saves can be taken, invuln, cover etc.. The unit is dead and removed as a casualty. There is no argument there.

At this stage limits the SA to that particular section of the close combat sequence.

RP and EL do not "save" models. Those models are replaced by a token and then rolled for at the end of the phase. Now RP cannot be used, because RP states that it cannot. RP token are removed from the unit when it "falls back" which is a prereq to SA. RP token are removed if the whole unit is destroyed, which SA will do. Therefore a unit that is Swept cannot use RP.

EL has no such restriction on its token. That token is never removed unless the roll for EL fails.

EL and SA do not conflict.

SA: Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit at this stage. EL is not a save but could be considered a special rule. However it does not apply "at this stage". EL applies at the end of the phase. After SA there is a consolidation stage that occurs before the end of the phase so there is no conflict with EL and SA going off at the same time.

The FAQ doesnt help either in regards to a SA and EL. It does say that an EL model can return even if the entire unit is destroyed, which SA does.

"At this stage limits the SA to that particular section of the close combat sequence. "

Again, that is not supported by the context of the rule. Nothing can save them at this stage means that, by the time you reach this point, nothing further can be done to save the unit from destruction. Not that this point in time is the only time they can be destroyed.

AGain: you are claiming that WBB would work, when the SAME SA rule (barring specific mention of RaaC) specificwally denied WBB in 4th.

Again: SA is functionally identical in 4th, 5th and 6th as regards the restriction on special rules. You contention is absurd as it directly contradicts the established fact that WBB, which functions even later than EL / RP, would not work.

given you cannot contradict this while maintaining a consistent argument, your argument is proven wrong. QED

Necron Codex, page 29 -
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty"

What do Sweeping Advances do?

BRB, page 27 -
"The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

In prior editions, I would never have argued for EL to come back. In 6th, the reading of the rules couldn't be any clearer to me. RP units are, of course, gone for good. EL units are not.

Fafnir13 wrote:Necron Codex, page 29 -
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty"

What do Sweeping Advances do?

BRB, page 27 -
"The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

In prior editions, I would never have argued for EL to come back. In 6th, the reading of the rules couldn't be any clearer to me. RP units are, of course, gone for good. EL units are not.

No, you need the rule to explicitly say that it works despite Sweeping Advance's prohibiton for special rules to save you. It doesn't.

Fafnir13 wrote:
EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

No it isn't. Everliving does not say anything about Sweeping Advance, which is required for the "otherwise specified" portion to be fullfilled.
I can give you example of a rule that actually does fullfill the "Unless otherwise specified": ATSKNF: (page 33, BRB)
"If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance,they are not destroyed, ..."

So unless rule or FAQ ruling mentions Sweeping Advance, it cannot save unit from being destroyed by a Sweeping Advance. This is what the "Unless otherwise specified" means.

Fafnir13 wrote:Necron Codex, page 29 -
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty"

What do Sweeping Advances do?

BRB, page 27 -
"The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

In prior editions, I would never have argued for EL to come back. In 6th, the reading of the rules couldn't be any clearer to me. RP units are, of course, gone for good. EL units are not.

Read ATSKNF. That is what SPECIFIC means. Being removed as a casualty is less specific than being removedas a casualty by Sweeping Advance and not being allowed to be saved unless your special rule specifies differently

nosferatu1001 wrote:AGain: you are claiming that WBB would work, when the SAME SA rule (barring specific mention of RaaC) specificwally denied WBB in 4th.

You contention is absurd as it directly contradicts the established fact that WBB, which functions even later than EL / RP, would not work.

Your quoting a 4th edition rule in 6th edition? I don't have access to it, but if you want to discuss the 4th edition version, SA and WBB, post it verbatim or a link to it.

The wording in 4th was identical to 5th, however, after the no special rules it said "(for example, We'll Be Back)".

It also has something about Massacre, which has nothing to do with this.

Happyjew wrote:The wording in 4th was identical to 5th, however, after the no special rules it said "(for example, We'll Be Back)".

It also has something about Massacre, which has nothing to do with this.

Ok, but again thats rules from 2 editions ago. Also WBB was worded and operated completely differently that RP/EL.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Read ATSKNF. That is what SPECIFIC means. Being removed as a casualty is less specific than being removedas a casualty by Sweeping Advance and not being allowed to be saved unless your special rule specifies differently

Your confusing words. Specified =/= Specific

Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Sweeping Advances says units are removed as casualties with no special rule saving them unless otherwise SPECIFIED. Ever Living SPECIFIES that a model being removed as a casualty gets to place an EL token.
This doesn't take any fancy twisting of the rules to arrive at. SA says "remove as casualties." EL triggers on "remove as casualties." The source of the removal doesn't matter. It could be shooting, assaulting, random fancy abilities, or anything that says it removes as casualties.

The short of it is that SA was changed. They didn't have to add "remove as casualties" to it, but they did. That is all the permission I or any other Necron player needs to place an EL counter.
I'm just reading the rules as written.

Wrong. Seriously, wrong. Read ATSKNF for what specified actually means.

The rule has to specify it works with SA, and keeps the unit alive. If it does not SPECIFY that Sweeping ADvance is ignored, then it isnt. Again, WBB. This foils your argument again. AS does ATSKNF.

Fragile - you're missing the point, entirely. WBB operated later in the game than EL, by definition. So an argument about timing, which is ALL your argument is, is foiled because WBB was denied from operating in the exact same rule sentence you are claiming allows EL.

In 4th ed, WBB did not work for two reasons. One, the rulebook specified it did not work (as a special rule). Two, WBB worked only if removed as a casualty and SA did not remove you as a casualty.

Reason Two still existed in 5th ed, hence the reason WBB/EL would not work when Swept.

Sixth Edition changed SA to Remove as a Casualty (which EL allows a model to come back).

As it stands, it is possible that GW meant EL to work when swept, but if that is so, then they will need to FAQ it.

Errata, so it specifically states it works even against SA.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fragile - you're missing the point, entirely. WBB operated later in the game than EL, by definition. So an argument about timing, which is ALL your argument is, is foiled because WBB was denied from operating in the exact same rule sentence you are claiming allows EL.

I could be missing the point Nosf, but your still arguing about a 4th edition rule that doesnt exist anymore. And your comparing it to EL which is worded and works entirely differently. You may well be correct in this. I do not play Necrons, nor really do I care how a ruling on this turns out to be. But if you read SA and EL, there is nothing prohibiting EL from placing a Token and then rolling later in that phase to bring the model back without further FAQ or Errata

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. Seriously, wrong. Read ATSKNF for what specified actually means.

The rule has to specify it works with SA, and keeps the unit alive. If it does not SPECIFY that Sweeping ADvance is ignored, then it isnt. Again, WBB. This foils your argument again. AS does ATSKNF.

Seriously, wrong.
It does not have to specify that it works against Sweeping Advances. That's your own made up rule/opinion. Sweeping Advances states that no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified. EL does this as it SPECIFIES (all-caps for emphasis) that it works whenever a model is removed as a casualty. Sweeping Advances destroy units by removing them as casualties.

I don't know what version of English your speaking where specified doesn't mean specified.

Again:
Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Remove as casualty is a condition of EL. SA removes as casualty. Condition met; therefore meets SA's condition of "Unless otherwise specified." Your opinion that it has to say "works against Sweeping Advances" is not backed up by this basic reading of the rules.

Fafnir13 wrote:
Seriously, wrong.
It does not have to specify that it works against Sweeping Advances. That's your own made up rule/opinion. Sweeping Advances states that no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified. EL does this as it SPECIFIES (all-caps for emphasis) that it works whenever a model is removed as a casualty. Sweeping Advances destroy units by removing them as casualties.

I don't know what version of English your speaking where specified doesn't mean specified.

Again:
Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Remove as casualty is a condition of EL. SA removes as casualty. Condition met; therefore meets SA's condition of "Unless otherwise specified." Your opinion that it has to say "works against Sweeping Advances" is not backed up by this basic reading of the rules.

I see it this way to ,but currently the Necrons are the army with some nice special rules that people don't like.

This is a simple case of choosing " unless otherwise stated " to mean it must state that it works re this rule and accepting nothing else .

As the above says the rule states " unless otherwise stated "and the EL rule states that it works re RFPAAC. that means the otherwise stated criteria has been met ,choosing to say it must say it works against SA when there is nothing to back up that position, as it does not say " no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified to work against SA" is adding your own spin on the rule and not using RAW

Sweeping Advance says:
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." P.27

Does EL Specify that it works against Sweeping Advance?

The rules I quoted above could say this and it would mean the same thing (a save or special rule can only rescue the unit if it specifies that it works against Sweeping Advance).

DeathReaper wrote:Sweeping Advance says:
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." P.27

Does EL Specify that it works against Sweeping Advance?

The rules I quoted above could say this and it would mean the same thing (a save or special rule can only rescue the unit if it specifies that it works against Sweeping Advance).

This. You don't get to save yourself with a special rule unless said special rule explicitly lets you ignore that part of Sweeping Advance, which EL doesn't.

Fafnir13 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. Seriously, wrong. Read ATSKNF for what specified actually means.

The rule has to specify it works with SA, and keeps the unit alive. If it does not SPECIFY that Sweeping ADvance is ignored, then it isnt. Again, WBB. This foils your argument again. AS does ATSKNF.

Seriously, wrong.
It does not have to specify that it works against Sweeping Advances. That's your own made up rule/opinion. Sweeping Advances states that no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified. EL does this as it SPECIFIES (all-caps for emphasis) that it works whenever a model is removed as a casualty. Sweeping Advances destroy units by removing them as casualties.

I don't know what version of English your speaking where specified doesn't mean specified.

Again:
Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Remove as casualty is a condition of EL. SA removes as casualty. Condition met; therefore meets SA's condition of "Unless otherwise specified." Your opinion that it has to say "works against Sweeping Advances" is not backed up by this basic reading of the rules.

Again, find where EL specifies it works against SA. BEcause currently your "specified " is not fulfilled, no matter how many times you break the forum rules. Find where "specified" is against SA. NOt against Removed as a Casaulty. Hint: one appears in the rules quote, one doesnt.

"Specified" is fulfilled. It removes as casualties.
You cannot convince me otherwise.

Specified relates to the Sweeping Advance rule

If the actual rule stating something otherwise wont convince you i dont know what will..

Fafnir13 wrote:"Specified" is fulfilled. It removes as casualties.
You cannot convince me otherwise.

Specified is fulfilled if it says it works against SA.

EL is not " otherwise specified" to work after a SA.

Therefore EL can not save a model from a SA.

Permissive ruleset tells us this is true.

An Everliving token is treated in the same manner as a RP token. If a fallback move is made, those EL tokens are also lost.
If you treat EL as a token that is not like RP, then it would not benefit from the Resurrection Orb. Since its been FaQed as working with an orb, that lends credence to it being treated as a RP token.

DeathReaper wrote:
Specified is fulfilled if it says it works against SA.

That is not what the rules say. It says "Unless otherwise specified." Not "Unless specified it works against SA." You are, as Snakel put it, adding your own spin on it.
What the rules say is nothing saves the model from SA unless the otherwise specified. EL specifies to place an EL token when the model is removed as a casualty. SA removes the model as a casualty.
That's straight up RAW.

Xzerios wrote:An Everliving token is treated in the same manner as a RP token. If a fallback move is made, those EL tokens are also lost.
If you treat EL as a token that is not like RP, then it would not benefit from the Resurrection Orb. Since its been FaQed as working with an orb, that lends credence to it being treated as a RP token.

Different issue. The discussion here pertains to an Overlord that is alive being killed by SA.
Incidentally, you're wrong. EL specifically says to not attach the EL token to the unit. "Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."
But that's a separate discussion.

Fafnir13 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Specified is fulfilled if it says it works against SA.

That is not what the rules say. It says "Unless otherwise specified." Not "Unless specified it works against SA." You are, as Snakel put it, adding your own spin on it.

The Context of the rules tells us this, I am not adding it in.


No save or other special rule can rescue the unit unless it specifies otherwise.

Does SA Specify otherwise in regards to the SA rule?
No it does not.

Fafnir13 wrote:"Specified" is fulfilled. It removes as casualties.
You cannot convince me otherwise.

That's not a good attitude to have. That says no matter how good your argument is I will ignore it. When you are so set in your own understanding that you refuse to consider that another might be right you have lost more than the argument. What if GW FAQs it to say you are wrong? Will you accept that?

While I see your point Fafnir13, the fact is for a SA to be made, a fail back has to occur first. Even if the Overlord is caught by it, you still have to remove the tokens because the fall back occurred. Pg 27 also covers this quite nicely. No save or special rule may save the unit. Not even St Celistian can come back from a SA or DoG, EL is no different.

Here's how it works in 6th Edition:

1. Necrons with RP (A) and Necrons with EL (B) are in a unit
2. some Necrons with RP are killed in combat (C) some Necrons with EL are killed in combat (D). RP counters are placed for (C) and EL counters for (D).
3. The unit loses combat and fails it's moral check - Oh nooo!
4. The unit is falling back so RP counters (C) are removed.
5. The winner's unit attempts Sweeping Advance and wins the roll off - Oh nooo!
6. RP necrons (A) and EL (B) are removed as casualties (at this stage!). Place EL counters for (B).
7. The winning unit makes a D6 consolidation move.
8. End of Phase - Necron player makes rolls for EL counters (B) and (D). EL models may be returned to play.

Anyone talking about 4th or 5th edition may try their luck resurrecting the threads for those editions of the game. In 6th edition the rule has been CHANGED and it is even clearer now how SA should work regarding EL.

BRB denies the necrons their EL special rule as its a special rule that (when alls said and done) allows the models to return to play. The rules for SA specifically tell us that it is impossible for them to return.

I play Necrons aswell, but thems the brakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After a quick think here, I do have to add something rather humorous involving this exact situation.

Ill humor the other side for a moment. Say your unit and Overlord are caught in a SA. You would remove your unit and place the one EL token. Lets say he passes. However, since your unit was removed from play and the rules for EL state that you must place him back into coherency with that squadron... where does he go? I would default to the last paragraph in that instance.

From my understanding, when a necron with everliving gets removed as casualty (meaning he really did die) from a sweeping advance (fullfilling the SA requirement of removing them as causalties) but he gets to place an EL token where the model died and at the end of the phase he gets to roll for EL.

I dont see the conflict between everliving and sweeping advance. I think the problem is some people view EL as a save (to prevent from dying/destroyed) instead of the model actually dying and then resurrecting later on in the game

Excellent way to put it. The model is not being saved. The only reason the Necron player gets to put a token is because he went and got killed in the first place.

Xzerios wrote:Ill humor the other side for a moment. Say your unit and Overlord are caught in a SA. You would remove your unit and place the one EL token. Lets say he passes. However, since your unit was removed from play and the rules for EL state that you must place him back into coherency with that squadron... where does he go? I would default to the last paragraph in that instance.

That got FAQ'ed.

Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, us wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls?

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.

While talking to the room mate, he swayed me to a neutral point. I agree to disagree at this point. A FaQ (which I will have to say wont happen for this issue) will have to come out for the BRB outlining the Divine Intervention and Ever Living specifically from working during SA/DoG. At this point, Ill take the advantage for Everliving working after a SA as codex > BRB at this moment.

I do want to state that I still believe that EL doesnt work on SA/DoG, but meh at this point.
(Derp the 3" EL from a wiped out squad. Woulda saved us a good half hour talk)

shock_at wrote:From my understanding, when a necron with everliving gets removed as casualty (meaning he really did die) from a sweeping advance (fullfilling the SA requirement of removing them as causalties) but he gets to place an EL token where the model died and at the end of the phase he gets to roll for EL.

I dont see the conflict between everliving and sweeping advance. I think the problem is some people view EL as a save (to prevent from dying/destroyed) instead of the model actually dying and then resurrecting later on in the game

Here is the problem you are missing the part about no special rule may save the unit unless specified.

Here is the rule, "unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage ; for them the battle is over." The punctuation is key to the sentence.


It is not a save it is a special rule that does not say it works after, during or in conjunction with SA. Lets take a look at that last little section, you know the one after the semicolon. What part of that says that EL would work?

With atsknf we at least have a way of knowing how it works with SA, becuase it specfies what to do in the instance of SA. Unlike EL, place a counter whenever a model is rfpaac, which is a blanket statement, not at all more specific then SA.

But everliving is not a special rule that rescues the unit, its a special rule that occurs when a model with EL dies. The model has to die first before an EL token is placed. For something to be resurrected, it has to be dead

shock_at wrote:But everliving is not a special rule that rescues the unit, its a special rule that occurs when a model with EL dies. The model has to die first before an EL token is placed. For something to be resurrected, it has to be dead

the unit was destroyed

the unit is no longer destroyed

You have just saved the unit. QED

nosferatu1001 wrote:

shock_at wrote:But everliving is not a special rule that rescues the unit, its a special rule that occurs when a model with EL dies. The model has to die first before an EL token is placed. For something to be resurrected, it has to be dead

the unit was destroyed

the unit is no longer destroyed

You have just saved the unit. QED

My opinion is that this exemplifies what's wrong with the opposing viewpoint. The rule preventing any 'special rule' from being used to 'save' a unit, restricts such rules from being used in direct response to a SA. There truly is no way (aside from ATSKNF) to stop a unit from being RFPaaC due to a SA. In no way, shape, or form is RP/EL considered a Save. It is not rolled with the intention of preventing (or as a direct response to) a SA. Meaning it does not fall within the 'unless otherwise specified' clause of the SA rule. In other words, EL does not (indeed cannot) stop a SA from occurring, and SA cannot remove and subsequently prevent the Necron player from rolling for EL.

I've never seen a contradiction between the two rule mechanics. I do think it odd that 6th edition has changed how models that are 'killed' by an SA are treated (though frankly I see no difference between RFP and RFPaaC).

I do understand where you're coming from. I simply disagree with it.

-Yad

You are running into a common English problem: 1 word with different meanings coming up in the same thought. A saving throw is allowed to stop a model from suffering a wound. A save is an abbreviated way of saying a saving throw. It is a noun. Take your save, he gets a save, he has a save.

To save is to interject to protect something or protect them from danger or harm. It is a verb. Funny story, saving throws save. Saves save. Special rules also save.

EL may not be a save, but it is a special rule that saves a unit. An IC is a unit unto themselves. Save the verb, not save the noun. Nothing can save (the verb) them now, not even a special rule. EL not being a save is irrelevant because it is still a special rule attempting to save a unit from destruction.

Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

Yes, but WBB didn't work if the squad was dead anyway and there was no "ever living" aspect in that version. While I'm not agreeing that EL is allowed via SA, using that reference point is invalid since WBB was more like RP than EL.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

References to WBB are irrelevant as that rule no longer exists. I find your reference to capitalization ironic

My opinion is that EL does not prevent an SA from occurring. While I would think you agree with that you also wish to assert that rolling for EL at the end of the Assault phase (after the SA has been resolved) somehow goes back and invalidates the SA. I don't think that's right. The SA fires off, the unit is removed (as a casualty for those that care about that), and no rule can be invoked (aside from ATSKNF) to prevent that.

So what do you do with the EL tokens? They [EL tokens] can't be removed by a failed Morale check. They can't be removed by a successful SA. Only the RP/EL rules themselves specifies how the tokens can be removed. I guess that if you're trying to stretch SA to cover the remainder of the Assault phase then you would say that the EL tokens would be lost. Which would run counter the rule in the 'cron codex.

-Yad

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Here is the problem you are missing the part about no special rule may save the unit unless specified.

Here is the rule, "unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage ; for them the battle is over." The punctuation is key to the sentence.


It is not a save it is a special rule that does not say it works after, during or in conjunction with SA. Lets take a look at that last little section, you know the one after the semicolon. What part of that says that EL would work?

With atsknf we at least have a way of knowing how it works with SA, becuase it specfies what to do in the instance of SA. Unlike EL, place a counter whenever a model is rfpaac, which is a blanket statement, not at all more specific then SA.

1) Is everliving a save? No
2) Does it occur "at this stage"? No
3) Do I play necrons? No
4) Do I hate necrons? A little
5) Does EL allow a model to come back after a SA? Yes

The at this stage is very important. It means right now, so that would prevent any FNP or similar regeneration of wounds rules coming into play. EL on the other hand happens at the end of the phase. To make it clearer, there is the SA stage, that happens, then there is the consolidation stage, that happens, then there is the EL stage.

For something to be unable to prevent SA death it must be both at that stage, which everliving is and not a save. If there is a rule that allows you to come back from any time you have been removed as a casualty, that would overrule the general SA stay remove as casualty. EL is specific enough to do that.

Let me preface this by saying I am a Blood Angels player. I run a DoA assault force and my roommate plays Necrons. So knowing that, you know there is no bias towards Necrons from me.

Reanimation Protocols do not work on a sweeping advance.

Everliving, however, most certainly does work. The everliving rule is specifically different than reanimation protocols and have particular timing rules associated with them. A unit with everliving can be swept just like any other necron unit, however, once swept, the necron is removed as a casualty and a counter is placed in his place. Everliving is rolled at the end of the phase AFTER the sweeping advance takes place. So, yes, the unit with everliving is caught in the sweep, but he gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase.

The trick is to consolidate in such a manner as to prevent the necron opponent from reanimating within 3" of the counter (keep your unit in such a way as to not be able to reanimate within 3" of it because he will be within 1" of your unit). If you can do this, and it's not as hard as it sounds, he can't reanimate. If not, he has a chance to get back up.

Yad - "at this stage" does not mean "this instant". It means that, by the time you reach this point NOTHING can save the unit UNLESS it specifies that it does
Which EL does not do

liturgies of blood wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Here is the problem you are missing the part about no special rule may save the unit unless specified.

Here is the rule, "unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage ; for them the battle is over." The punctuation is key to the sentence.


It is not a save it is a special rule that does not say it works after, during or in conjunction with SA. Lets take a look at that last little section, you know the one after the semicolon. What part of that says that EL would work?

With atsknf we at least have a way of knowing how it works with SA, becuase it specfies what to do in the instance of SA. Unlike EL, place a counter whenever a model is rfpaac, which is a blanket statement, not at all more specific then SA.

1) Is everliving a save? No
2) Does it occur "at this stage"? No
3) Do I play necrons? No
4) Do I hate necrons? A little
5) Does EL allow a model to come back after a SA? Yes

The at this stage is very important. It means right now, so that would prevent any FNP or similar regeneration of wounds rules coming into play. EL on the other hand happens at the end of the phase. To make it clearer, there is the SA stage, that happens, then there is the consolidation stage, that happens, then there is the EL stage.

For something to be unable to prevent SA death it must be both at that stage, which everliving is and not a save. If there is a rule that allows you to come back from any time you have been removed as a casualty, that would overrule the general SA stay remove as casualty. EL is specific enough to do that.

Does EL say anywhere in its text that it works regardless of how the model was removed? Does EL say that even if a SA happens place the token? Does EL have any language such as the last two questions I pose? You are putting to much empahsis on one area, and not enough on others. At this stage for instance, does not denote timing for anything in the game. Otherwise, it would have its own sub-phase in the rules, which it doesn't. There are two sub-phases in thre assault phase, charge and fight. I would like to point out again the last little tidbit at the end of the rule, which I have shown is a part of the rule, that any unit that is caught by a SA "for them the battle is over." Please cite specific text from EL that either says that is will work against SA specifically, or allows a model that the fight is over for to come back.....

Furthermore, is EL specific enough to overrule SA? Here is your problem as I pointed out last time, EL is very general in its application. SA is very specific about what happens, and what can or cannot happen, what rules can and what rules cannot do . Just because there is a rule in a codex does not make it more specific then the rules in the BRB.

The confusion is that players are trying to say "everliving doesn't save you from a sweeping advance." Technically, it doesn't, nor does the everliving rule INTEND to prevent a sweeping advance.

If a unit contains a character with EL, and they fail the roll off, they are swept. The unit is destroyed. They can't reanimate because the rule for reanimation protocols is specific in this that if a unit is totally wiped out, remove all counters from them.

EL works differently. The character with EL is removed as a casualty just like the rest of the unit, however, a counter is placed where he is removed. Unit consolidates, and then at the end of the assault phase, the Necron player gets to roll for EL. You most definitely get EL on a sweeping advance and the rules are quite clear when you look at the timing of the effect.

Heres the problem until a new codex with some niffty rule comes out for the haters to move on to ,no matter what you say re EL and SA it wont be accepted

This will go round in circles, for me and the people i play and the people they play EL works even after SA by RAW, so have fun arguing this until you get a new codex to hate

snakel wrote:Heres the problem until a new codex with some niffty rule comes out for the haters to move on to ,no matter what you say re EL and SA it wont be accepted

This will go round in circles, for me and the people i play and the people they play EL works even after SA by RAW, so have fun arguing this until you get a new codex to hate

Snakel, you keep on saying something is RAW when you actually mean "This Is How We Play It" or RAI.
ATSKNF is the precedent that shows required level of detail for anything to work against SA. EL doesn't have that level of detail, so by RAW it doesn't work. Now, you're free to play it as you wish in your group, but if you want to argue RAW, give rule quotes with page numbers.

Luide, everyone here is arguing "TIHWPI". There is no clear cut answer here. Which I found interesting when I looked it up.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Does EL say anywhere in its text that it works regardless of how the model was removed? Does EL say that even if a SA happens place the token? Does EL have any language such as the last two questions I pose? You are putting to much empahsis on one area, and not enough on others. At this stage for instance, does not denote timing for anything in the game. Otherwise, it would have its own sub-phase in the rules, which it doesn't. There are two sub-phases in thre assault phase, charge and fight. I would like to point out again the last little tidbit at the end of the rule, which I have shown is a part of the rule, that any unit that is caught by a SA "for them the battle is over." Please cite specific text from EL that either says that is will work against SA specifically, or allows a model that the fight is over for to come back.....

Furthermore, is EL specific enough to overrule SA? Here is your problem as I pointed out last time, EL is very general in its application. SA is very specific about what happens, and what can or cannot happen, what rules can and what rules cannot do . Just because there is a rule in a codex does not make it more specific then the rules in the BRB.

It doesn't need to, once it says removed as a casualty then you are grand. Does SA remove a model as a casualty?

Luide wrote:

snakel wrote:Heres the problem until a new codex with some niffty rule comes out for the haters to move on to ,no matter what you say re EL and SA it wont be accepted

This will go round in circles, for me and the people i play and the people they play EL works even after SA by RAW, so have fun arguing this until you get a new codex to hate

Snakel, you keep on saying something is RAW when you actually mean "This Is How We Play It" or RAI.
ATSKNF is the precedent that shows required level of detail for anything to work against SA. EL doesn't have that level of detail, so by RAW it doesn't work. Now, you're free to play it as you wish in your group, but if you want to argue RAW, give rule quotes with page numbers.

Ehm, the difference is that ATSKNF is a direct response to sweeping advance. Ever living has nothing to do with it, sweeping advance still works against them in that it DOES remove them as a casualty.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

I would call this argument the "EDITION CONFUSION" argument. WBB is not the same rule as Everliving whatsoever. It has a different name, and different wording. The Sweeping Advance rule from the BRB has changed. It's not the same wording either.

Rules in Warhammer 40k can change between editions.

Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Well, it didn't save the unit they just couldn't use WBB because the squad was demolish by something that did not allow armor saves. That's really the biggest reason. That and they specifically called it out in the rulebook as well. But that is not the case anymore in many respects. Comparing WBB to EL "at all" is just plain the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to argue on this point.

Kevin there were a number of reasons why they could not use WBB; they were not removed as casualties, they were removed by something that did not allow armour saves, but most specifically:

4th edition rulebook wrote: No Invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back special rule) can save the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over

This is where the hang up is (I think). People are arguing that EL does not "save the unit at this stage" even though it happens even earlier than WBB.

Edit: Even then technically the only things that did not allow WBB were close combat attacks that ignored armour saves, weapons with Strength 2x Toughness, and no like model within 6". Therefore, one could have argued WBB would have worked, except for the fact of he little bit I quoted.

Happyjew wrote:Kevin there were a number of reasons why they could not use WBB; they were not removed as casualties, they were removed by something that did not allow armour saves, but most specifically:

4th edition rulebook wrote: No Invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back special rule) can save the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over

This is where the hang up is (I think). People are arguing that EL does not "save the unit at this stage" even though it happens even earlier than WBB.

Edit: Even then technically the only things that did not allow WBB were close combat attacks that ignored armour saves, weapons with Strength 2x Toughness, and no like model within 6". Therefore, one could have argued WBB would have worked, except for the fact of he little bit I quoted.

I know why they couldn't use WBB, and stated it. But as I said, WBB was MUCH more restrictive on when it was allowed as opposed to EL. Which is why I'm saying bringing up WBB "at all" is a terrible way to argue the "SA works against EL and they're off the table" side of this argument. I'm not disagreeing with either side here, but I definitely see the point people are making.

You have to remember though, WBB was closer to RP and functions much the same, in this situation. EL is a similar but whole new animal, even compared to RP.

Well, even back in those times there were abilities that caused no wounds but still didn't allow WBB, such as JoTWW and SaG. Again though that's irrelevant for this time.

Excuse me, I thought we were talking about 6th edition? I think it's best to just not even bring up older editions.

I feel like I'm typing to a brick wall here. You do get to make an EL roll after a sweeping advance and the rules as written are perfectly clear on this. It isn't even up for a debate. The EL is not a special rule stating that the target of the sweep won't be removed as a casualty. the character with EL is in fact removed as a casualty. He has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase provided he can do so within 3" of the counter and not within 1" of an enemy model.

robzidious wrote:He has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase provided he can do so within 3" of the counter and not within 1" of an enemy model.

So you're saving the unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:He has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase provided he can do so within 3" of the counter and not within 1" of an enemy model.

So you're saving the unit?

Nope.. The unit has a separate rule associate with it which specifically points out that once a unit with reanimation protocols is removed completely, they cannot roll to get back up at the end of phase. So, if a unit of warriors with a lord is swept, remove the unit and all counters. The lord gets swept too, however he gets an EL counter placed where his model was. Consolidate the unit that won the combat (a clever opponent will do so in such a manner as to prevent the character from coming back with EL by moving his models so that the character can't get back up within 3" of the counter without being within 1" of an enemy model). If the character with the EL counter can get back up (i.e. no enemy units in the area as specified above) he makes his roll and has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase.

The rule associated with SA and EL are two completely separate rules entirely and independent of one another.

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:He has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase provided he can do so within 3" of the counter and not within 1" of an enemy model.

So you're saving the unit?

Nope.. The unit has a separate rule associate with it which specifically points out that once a unit with reanimation protocols is removed completely, they cannot roll to get back up at the end of phase. So, if a unit of warriors with a lord is swept, remove the unit and all counters. The lord gets swept too, however he gets an EL counter placed where his model was. Consolidate the unit that won the combat (a clever opponent will do so in such a manner as to prevent the character from coming back with EL by moving his models so that the character can't get back up within 3" of the counter without being within 1" of an enemy model). If the character with the EL counter can get back up (i.e. no enemy units in the area as specified above) he makes his roll and has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase.

The rule associated with SA and EL are two completely separate rules entirely and independent of one another.

Except they're not. SA destroys the unit.
You're saving the unit by bringing it back with the EL model.

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:He has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase provided he can do so within 3" of the counter and not within 1" of an enemy model.

So you're saving the unit?

Nope.. The unit has a separate rule associate with it which specifically points out that once a unit with reanimation protocols is removed completely, they cannot roll to get back up at the end of phase. So, if a unit of warriors with a lord is swept, remove the unit and all counters. The lord gets swept too, however he gets an EL counter placed where his model was. Consolidate the unit that won the combat (a clever opponent will do so in such a manner as to prevent the character from coming back with EL by moving his models so that the character can't get back up within 3" of the counter without being within 1" of an enemy model). If the character with the EL counter can get back up (i.e. no enemy units in the area as specified above) he makes his roll and has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase.

The rule associated with SA and EL are two completely separate rules entirely and independent of one another.

Except they're not. SA destroys the unit.
You're saving the unit by bringing it back with the EL model.

Nope. The unit is destroyed by the SA. The character with EL is destroyed as well. Nothing occuring within the SA allows them to return. However, the character with EL gets a counter and gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase, provided he can do so.

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they're not. SA destroys the unit.
You're saving the unit by bringing it back with the EL model.

Nope. The unit is destroyed by the SA. The character with EL is destroyed as well. Nothing occuring within the SA allows them to return. However, the character with EL gets a counter and gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase, provided he can do so.

So you agree that SA destroys the unit.

Are you saying that the EL model that stands back up is a new unit? Or resurrecting the old unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they're not. SA destroys the unit.
You're saving the unit by bringing it back with the EL model.

Nope. The unit is destroyed by the SA. The character with EL is destroyed as well. Nothing occuring within the SA allows them to return. However, the character with EL gets a counter and gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase, provided he can do so.

So you agree that SA destroys the unit.

Are you saying that the EL model that stands back up is a new unit? Or resurrecting the old unit?

Yes, the SA destroys the unit, including any characters attached to it due to the sweep. The unit cannot resurrect, because reanimation protocols specifically states that a unit wiped out completely loses all counters. A model with EL follows a completely different rule than reanimation protocols for getting up. The unit is destroyed. The only one that would have a chance to get back up would be the character with the EL counter and only because the rule for EL allows it to do so.

It would be treated as a new unit composed of just the character with EL. If more than one, each would be separate units, if I'm not mistaken.

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they're not. SA destroys the unit.
You're saving the unit by bringing it back with the EL model.

Nope. The unit is destroyed by the SA. The character with EL is destroyed as well. Nothing occuring within the SA allows them to return. However, the character with EL gets a counter and gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase, provided he can do so.

So you agree that SA destroys the unit.

Are you saying that the EL model that stands back up is a new unit? Or resurrecting the old unit?

Yes, the SA destroys the unit, including any characters attached to it due to the sweep. The unit cannot resurrect, because reanimation protocols specifically states that a unit wiped out completely loses all counters. A model with EL follows a completely different rule than reanimation protocols for getting up. The unit is destroyed. The only one that would have a chance to get back up would be the character with the EL counter and only because the rule for EL allows it to do so.

So you're separating the EL model from the unit somehow?
Is the EL model not in a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Except they're not. SA destroys the unit.
You're saving the unit by bringing it back with the EL model.

Nope. The unit is destroyed by the SA. The character with EL is destroyed as well. Nothing occuring within the SA allows them to return. However, the character with EL gets a counter and gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase, provided he can do so.

So you agree that SA destroys the unit.

Are you saying that the EL model that stands back up is a new unit? Or resurrecting the old unit?

Yes, the SA destroys the unit, including any characters attached to it due to the sweep. The unit cannot resurrect, because reanimation protocols specifically states that a unit wiped out completely loses all counters. A model with EL follows a completely different rule than reanimation protocols for getting up. The unit is destroyed. The only one that would have a chance to get back up would be the character with the EL counter and only because the rule for EL allows it to do so.

So you're separating the EL model from the unit somehow?
Is the EL model not in a unit?

He is in the unit when they get swept. Nothing can prevent the character from dying due to the sweeping advance. EL only allows the character to get back up if he dies or is removed as a casualty at the end of the assault phase after a sweeping advance. Nothing is saving the character with EL from dying. He dies. Number of wounds left doesn't matter, special abilities, nothing...he dies along with the unit he was attached to. He gets an EL counter and then gets a chance to get back up being his own separate unit at the end of the phase. In fact, you're technically not supposed to even roll for EL until the very end of the phase when all close combats are completed across the board.

rigeld2 wrote:So you're separating the EL model from the unit somehow?
Is the EL model not in a unit?

He has to be in the (now dead) unit, as he can only leave in the movement phase.

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So you're separating the EL model from the unit somehow?
Is the EL model not in a unit?

He has to be in the (now dead) unit, as he can only leave in the movement phase.

Yes, but he's not leaving the unit. He dies, along with his unit. He gets a chance to return with EL and becomes his own separate unit entirely.

robzidious wrote:Yes, but he's not leaving the unit. He dies, along with his unit. He gets a chance to return with EL and becomes his own separate unit entirely.

How would he become his own separate unit when he may not leave his unit until the movement phase?

DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:Yes, but he's not leaving the unit. He dies, along with his unit. He gets a chance to return with EL and becomes his own separate unit entirely.

How would he become his own separate unit when he may not leave his unit until the movement phase?

Because when he resurrects, he has no unit. He becomes a unit of his own. He can then join another unit in the subsequent movement phase provided he can actually move and do so.

Think of it like this. When an IC is attached to a unit, and that unit is destroyed due to shooting. The only thing left from the unit is the IC. He is his own unit until he joins another unit in the movement phase. Same thing. This just happens at the end of the assault phase.

robzidious wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:Yes, but he's not leaving the unit. He dies, along with his unit. He gets a chance to return with EL and becomes his own separate unit entirely.

How would he become his own separate unit when he may not leave his unit until the movement phase?

Because when he resurrects, he has no unit. He becomes a unit of his own. He can then join another unit in the subsequent movement phase provided he can actually move and do so.

Except he is not allowed to leave his unit until the movement phase, so RAW he is still attached to the (now dead) warrior unit.\

The rules do not say that "He becomes a unit of his own"

When the unit is killed, all the models are removed as casualties. When you do that, EL triggers and you place a token. At this point, SA has been fulfilled. Unit is destroyed. End of story. Everybody's dead, Dave.
The Token, placed legally as the model was removed as a casualty, allows an EL roll. Make the roll and the model may be placed back on the table.

Characters are specifically allowed to come back even if their unit has been wiped out. As per the FAQ:


Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, us wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls?

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.

robzidious wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:Yes, but he's not leaving the unit. He dies, along with his unit. He gets a chance to return with EL and becomes his own separate unit entirely.

How would he become his own separate unit when he may not leave his unit until the movement phase?

Because when he resurrects, he has no unit. He becomes a unit of his own. He can then join another unit in the subsequent movement phase provided he can actually move and do so.

But he can't resurrect, because when he died he was part of the unit, and nothing that doesn't explicitly say it can can save the unit from SA.

Fafnir13 wrote:Characters are specifically allowed to come back even if their unit has been wiped out. As per the FAQ:

That is true, however they are still a part of the dead unit until the movement phase.

and they can not come back from a SA because the EL rule does not specify that they can.

And both of you are assuming an IC. Crypteks are not ICs and are also EL.

And you're still saving the unit without a rule specifically allowing you do to so.

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

Does EL otherwise specify? In other words, does EL say it rescues from SA?

DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

robzidious wrote:Yes, but he's not leaving the unit. He dies, along with his unit. He gets a chance to return with EL and becomes his own separate unit entirely.

How would he become his own separate unit when he may not leave his unit until the movement phase?

Because when he resurrects, he has no unit. He becomes a unit of his own. He can then join another unit in the subsequent movement phase provided he can actually move and do so.

Except he is not allowed to leave his unit until the movement phase, so RAW he is still attached to the (now dead) warrior unit.\

The rules do not say that " He becomes a unit of his own"

He is not leaving the unit. The unit died. When he returns, he is his own unit. What else could he be?

robzidious wrote:He is not leaving the unit. The unit died. When he returns, he is his own unit. What else could he be?

If all of the models were killed with shooting attacks, and the EL models gets back up he is still attached to the unit he was with even though they are now all dead until his next movement phase, as that is when IC's are allowed to leave a unit.

Not that it really matters that he is still a part of the unit as it does not really have any effect on anything.

rigeld2 wrote:And both of you are assuming an IC. Crypteks are not ICs and are also EL.

And you're still saving the unit without a rule specifically allowing you do to so.

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

Does EL otherwise specify? In other words, does EL say it rescues from SA?

Again, nothing within EL, Reanimation, or anything else states that they are being rescued or saved from a SA. The EL roll is made at the end of the assault phase. It's not something that saves the character or his unit from dying...he dies.. He just has a chance to get back up. But only the models with EL can do this.

Believe me, I hate this rule. It is beyond cheesy and it has frustrated me playing to no end. No one likes having to kill a lord/cryptek whatever over and over again. Still yet, that's the case with EL.

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And both of you are assuming an IC. Crypteks are not ICs and are also EL.

And you're still saving the unit without a rule specifically allowing you do to so.

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

Does EL otherwise specify? In other words, does EL say it rescues from SA?

Again, nothing within EL, Reanimation, or anything else states that they are being rescued or saved from a SA. The EL roll is made at the end of the assault phase. It's not something that saves the character or his unit from dying...he dies.. He just has a chance to get back up. But only the models with EL can do this.

Believe me, I hate this rule. It is beyond cheesy and it has frustrated me playing to no end. No one likes having to kill a lord/cryptek whatever over and over again. Still yet, that's the case with EL.

If nothing says that they're being rescued from SA, why are you so adamant that EL rescues them from SA?

DeathReaper wrote:
Not that it really matters that he is still a part of the unit as it does not really have any effect on anything.

Exactly. I guess in the case of crypteks and the like, they return on their own. Considered as the same unit. Just he's by himself at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And both of you are assuming an IC. Crypteks are not ICs and are also EL.

And you're still saving the unit without a rule specifically allowing you do to so.

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

Does EL otherwise specify? In other words, does EL say it rescues from SA?

Again, nothing within EL, Reanimation, or anything else states that they are being rescued or saved from a SA. The EL roll is made at the end of the assault phase. It's not something that saves the character or his unit from dying...he dies.. He just has a chance to get back up. But only the models with EL can do this.

Believe me, I hate this rule. It is beyond cheesy and it has frustrated me playing to no end. No one likes having to kill a lord/cryptek whatever over and over again. Still yet, that's the case with EL.

If nothing says that they're being rescued from SA, why are you so adamant that EL rescues them from SA?

I'm not adamant that it rescues them. It doesn't. Rescue would be to say, somehow they avoid the sweep and do not die. They die. They absolutely are removed as casualties and die. It's just that the models with EL are replaced with a counter and get to roll at the end of the assault phase to get back up.

robzidious wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Not that it really matters that he is still a part of the unit as it does not really have any effect on anything.

Exactly. I guess in the case of crypteks and the like, they return on their own. Considered as the same unit. Just he's by himself at this point.

Except it absolutely matters. The unit was destroyed and cannot be saved. Bringing back a member of the unit saves the unit.

Trying to say that a Cryptek is a new unit that "counts as" the old unit has no rules support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

robzidious wrote:I'm not adamant that it rescues them. It doesn't. Rescue would be to say, somehow they avoid the sweep and do not die. They die. They absolutely are removed as casualties and die. It's just that the models with EL are replaced with a counter and get to roll at the end of the assault phase to get back up.

You're adamant that the unit is saved. With no rules support.

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Not that it really matters that he is still a part of the unit as it does not really have any effect on anything.

Exactly. I guess in the case of crypteks and the like, they return on their own. Considered as the same unit. Just he's by himself at this point.

Except it absolutely matters. The unit was destroyed and cannot be saved. Bringing back a member of the unit saves the unit.

Trying to say that a Cryptek is a new unit that "counts as" the old unit has no rules support.

It doesn't save the unit, dude. The unit dies. When the SA occurs they absolutely die. All of them. Remove any reanimation protocol counters. That unit is dead. Gone. However, if a model with EL is removed as a casualty he gets an EL counter and has a chance to get back up. It has absolute rules support because it is written in the rules. Nothing prevents the unit/character from dying during a sweeping advance. The roll to get back up is a completely separate roll made at the end of the phase entirely.

robzidious wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Not that it really matters that he is still a part of the unit as it does not really have any effect on anything.

Exactly. I guess in the case of crypteks and the like, they return on their own. Considered as the same unit. Just he's by himself at this point.

Except it absolutely matters. The unit was destroyed and cannot be saved. Bringing back a member of the unit saves the unit.

Trying to say that a Cryptek is a new unit that "counts as" the old unit has no rules support.

It doesn't save the unit, dude. The unit dies. When the SA occurs they absolutely die. All of them. Remove any reanimation protocol counters. That unit is dead. Gone. However, if a model with EL is removed as a casualty he gets an EL counter and has a chance to get back up. It has absolute rules support because it is written in the rules. Nothing prevents the unit/character from dying during a sweeping advance. The roll to get back up is a completely separate roll made at the end of the phase entirely.

A unit is made up of models.
The unit is destroyed, meaning all the models are RFPaaC.
The unit (meaning the group of models) cannot be saved without specific allowance.

You're not understanding what I say when I say the word "unit". I'm not talking about individual models here. I'm talking about the group of models that walks around the board. The members of the unit are irrelevant - the unit is destroyed.

You know, they are correct though that the unit is "not" saved from sweeping advance. They still suffer the drawback of dying, not being locked in CC anymore, probably being consolidated on top of (thus meaning you can't place the model anyway), and all the non-EL models are gone. Being "rescued" from sweeping advance is very different from something happening because of a cause and effect.

So we have, Sweeping Advance. SA removes the unit as a casualty and the winning unit gets to do all the neat things they can do when winning an Assault Round.

Unit was removed as a casualty which is a pre-qualifier for EL to trigger. EL does not make any mention of what needed to cause this casualty removal nor does it say what denies it, nor does it say it needs to be a final wound casualty.

EL roll is made because the unit/model with EL was removed as a casualty, not because it was Sweeping Advanced.

The whole ATSKNF dispute is irrelevant because that rule allows the marines to not get swept at all and just stay in assault. Not the case at all here.

Honestly, I'm starting to move over to this side of the fence. Don't think I'll play it this way because I KNOW my gaming group would just not play me anymore, but I see it.

And not that it matters but the GW website states that "Models with ever living are always allowed a reanimation protocols roll." LoL Again, for what it's worth.

And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

The SA rule has the part of " unless otherwise Specified " Now this is all there is, there is no "to work against SA" part to the rule no" rules must state they work re SA " the second two parts are being added by the Necron bashing brigade .

EL states that a model with this rule can attempt to roll to get back up even if his unit is destroyed ,it also states he can get this role when RFPAAC These two statements are otherwise Specifying that he gets to try and get back up .

Now could any of the RAW = everything good in the Necron codex does not work brigade,please show me the reference in the SA rule where it states "unless otherwise Specified to work against SA" is? because i have searched the BRB and can not find it ,yet you still go on about it having to do something that is not in the BRB and so is not RAW.

EL roll is only negated by 2 things and those , are falling back off the table and not being able to place the lord within 3" of his marker nothing else

And as has been said before, but ignored EL does not stop SA, it happens after the SA has happened at the end of the phase.

Now i know i will be called out on this again since i always am but in this case RAW= EL roll is legal .

The pro argument has shown clear and precise use of RAW to help its argument the against side ,has only added extra words to the SA rule which do not exist and then moved the argument away from the main points ,and back to the saving a unit argument we had with the 5th ed rules .

This will go round and round until the thread is locked or something else in the Necrons codex needs nerfing or until a new army's codex is released with nice rules people don't like .

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

You must have missed this earlier but it is not just a specific rule, it is a specific rule at this stage. At this stage is not the entire assault phase that remains, just at this stage. The models must be removed as casualties.

The unit is destroyed and immediately removed as a casualty. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

1st sentence: The unit is removed as a casualty, hence they fulfill the capacity for EL to be activated.
2nd sentence: 1st & second clause, the casualties cannot be prevented and no rule may prevent this unless it specifically says so. 3rd clause, Fluff or narrative.

The EL does not happen at this stage and is not a save, it is not preventing the SA, it is not doing any of that. What it is allowing you to do is to put models that have died, there is no restriction now on how the model died so long as it was removed as a casualty. It appears that there is no difference between RFP and RFPaaC so the models may come back.
This is clearly RAW. Prove to me it is not, parse the sentence and use british english to do it. Take it also in the context of the paragraph.

I don't see why you are against this.

snakel wrote:The SA rule has the part of " unless otherwise Specified " Now this is all there is, there is no "to work against SA" part to the rule no" rules must state they work re SA " the second two parts are being added by the Necron bashing brigade .

Yeah, I'm totally a member. I hate Necrons. I'm completely and utterly biased against them.
Or, I'm just trying to discuss a rule and happen to disagree with you. Nice accusation.

Now could any of the RAW = everything good in the Necron codex does not work brigade,please show me the reference in the SA rule where it states "unless otherwise Specified to work against SA" is? because i have searched the BRB and can not find it ,yet you still go on about it having to do something that is not in the BRB and so is not RAW.

More accusations - cute.
Context is what spells it out. SA nukes the unit unless otherwise specified.

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

Something has to specify it can rescue the unit at this stage.

And as has been said before, but ignored EL does not stop SA, it happens after the SA has happened at the end of the phase.

It wasn't ignored - that is incorrect. SA is not a one-and-done thing. The unit is destroyed and can't come back at this stage.

the against side ,has only added extra words to the SA rule which do not exist and then moved the argument away from the main points ,and back to the saving a unit argument we had with the 5th ed rules .

Yeah, because the saving the unit argument was so wrong last edition, and it's changed so much this edition.

This will go round and round until the thread is locked or something else in the Necrons codex needs nerfing or until a new army's codex is released with nice rules people don't like .

Stop with the accusations please. I'm not the one with a bias here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

You must have missed this earlier but it is not just a specific rule, it is a specific rule at this stage. At this stage is not the entire assault phase that remains, just at this stage. The models must be removed as casualties.

The unit is destroyed and immediately removed as a casualty. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

1st sentence: The unit is removed as a casualty, hence they fulfill the capacity for EL to be activated.
2nd sentence: 1st & second clause, the casualties cannot be prevented and no rule may prevent this unless it specifically says so. 3rd clause, Fluff or narrative.

The EL does not happen at this stage and is not a save, it is not preventing the SA, it is not doing any of that. What it is allowing you to do is to put models that have died, there is no restriction now on how the model died so long as it was removed as a casualty. It appears that there is no difference between RFP and RFPaaC so the models may come back.
This is clearly RAW. Prove to me it is not, parse the sentence and use british english to do it. Take it also in the context of the paragraph.

I don't see why you are against this.

You're asserting that "at this stage" is a point in time. It's not.

"at this stage" is similar to "from here on out" in English.

Eh since when, do you even know what those phrases mean?
At this stage means now, from here on out mean henceforth.
You failed English, that was a bad one.

Liturgies, the part in sweeping advance about nothing saving the unit has been exactly the same since 4th edition. In 4th edition as I pointed out, specifically said WBB could not be used. It says this when talking about special rules and saves. Although word for word WBB and EL are not identical, they are still special rules that save the unit "at this time".

Happy: I understand that, but 6th ed is a ruleset that must be seen on it's own.
4th ed doesn't matter anymore. 5th ed doesn't matter. 3rd which I enjoyed definitely doesn't matter. From a strict RAW I cannot see how at this time refers to anything beyond the sweeping advance.

As I said they don't save the unit at that time of a sweeping advance, the EL model comes back at the end of the phase. Not at the time of a sweeping advance.

Getting technical here. It really doesnt matter what SA says. Codex says to place the counter and roll. SA doesnt clearly prohibit EL therefore, "may not save at this stage" would not apply.

Everyone is arguing the fundamental Codex v. BRB backwards here.

liturgies of blood wrote:Happy: I understand that, but 6th ed is a ruleset that must be seen on it's own.
4th ed doesn't matter anymore. 5th ed doesn't matter. 3rd which I enjoyed definitely doesn't matter.

As I said they don't save the unit at that time of a sweeping advance, the EL model comes back at the end of the phase. Not at the time of a sweeping advance.

And WBB comes back at the start of the next turn. Even later than EL. And you coils not use that to save a unit.

Happyjew wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Happy: I understand that, but 6th ed is a ruleset that must be seen on it's own.
4th ed doesn't matter anymore. 5th ed doesn't matter. 3rd which I enjoyed definitely doesn't matter.

As I said they don't save the unit at that time of a sweeping advance, the EL model comes back at the end of the phase. Not at the time of a sweeping advance.

And WBB comes back at the start of the next turn. Even later than EL. And you coils not use that to save a unit.

What does that disprove of 1 codex > rulebook. And a reading of SA using british english?

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

Not from sweeping advance, no. It did its job.

The order of operations is this -

SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation

with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance

SA - ATSKNF - Consolidate back into Melee (or essentially never leave melee)

And how it's proposed

SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL

That's a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Liturgies, the part in sweeping advance about nothing saving the unit has been exactly the same since 4th edition. In 4th edition as I pointed out, specifically said WBB could not be used. It says this when talking about special rules and saves. Although word for word WBB and EL are not identical, they are still special rules that save the unit "at this time".

Happyjew wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Happy: I understand that, but 6th ed is a ruleset that must be seen on it's own.
4th ed doesn't matter anymore. 5th ed doesn't matter. 3rd which I enjoyed definitely doesn't matter.

As I said they don't save the unit at that time of a sweeping advance, the EL model comes back at the end of the phase. Not at the time of a sweeping advance.

And WBB comes back at the start of the next turn. Even later than EL. And you coils not use that to save a unit.

I'm not saying this to be mean or anything, but you seriously need to stop bringing up WBB in this, it has nothing to do with it and is a completely different rule, version and time. Really, WBB had many many caveats to why it didn't work against SA, not the least of which is that it said so in the rulebook. That is not the case anymore. So please, everyone, stop bringing up WBB, it does not matter and doesn't exist anymore.

Fragile wrote:Getting technical here. It really doesnt matter what SA says. Codex says to place the counter and roll. SA doesnt clearly prohibit EL therefore, "may not save at this stage" would not apply.

Everyone is arguing the fundamental Codex v. BRB backwards here.

Do you know how a permissive ruleset works? It doesn't have to say it prohibits it. The issue here is the nuance of the game system utilizing the exact same terminology for many things and using it as a blanket statement when there are exceptions or potential exceptions. Such as SA saying "for them, the fight is over". That isn't a rule, that's just fluff. Their fight is over because any model removed as a casualty is typically at the end of their fight at that stage.

With how sweeping advance is worded now (because it "was not" the same in the previous book), it is VERY different. It does not say the unit is destroyed (as everyone is saying), it says Removed as casualty. The LAST rulebook said destroyed. The LAST rulebook said they're removed immediately. Not, removed from play. Not, removed as casualty. Just, Removed. Very Different!

Lets take another look kevin. See its still part of the sentence telling you what the rules are and how they function, how can you determine what is fluff and what is not fluff in this instance? Do you have privlaged discourse with the people who wrote the rules? Do you have a magic ring telling you what is a rule and what isn't a rule in the same sentence. Is there something that tips you off to it? Or is it you just thinking that it is fluff?

Furthermore when you place that token for EL you are placing it during the SA I assume, yes? If so you need a senctence saying that you can place it during a SA, otherwise it cannot function due to the no special rules restriction in SA.
So following the system you laid out


SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation

with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance
SA - ATSKNF - Consolidate back into Melee (or essentially never leave melee)

And how it's proposed

SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL

See you missed a part here

SA - Removed as casualty (EL kicks in here during the SA because you place the token for EL yes? If so please cite permission with regards to both EL and the restriction of special rules by SA) - Consolidation

Kevin - so you get to rescue the unit?

Yes or No. Simple question - EL Cryptek is Swept, and you try to rescue him by rolling for EL. IFd you succeed, has the UNIT that was swept been rescued?

Yes, or No.

Once you answer that question you will see how RAW you are wrong.

liturgies of blood wrote:Eh since when, do you even know what those phrases mean?
At this stage means now, from here on out mean henceforth.
You failed English, that was a bad one.

Erm, no - at this stage is not a single point in time.

This was hashed out in the last SA thread.

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

I disagree. In my opinion, this is the fundamental misunderstanding that you (and like minded folks) are having. You cannot save the unit from a successful SA. The SA destroys them. We can't stop that from happening. Rolling for the legally placed EL token at the end of the phase does not negate what the SA did. All that SA does is remove the swept unit from the battlefield. Period full stop. SA places restrictions on how the swept unit can stop this from happening (the unit must have a rule that specifically negates the SA). What happens after the SA is resolve is not of concern to the SA rule mechanic.

In other words, if I were to succeed at my EL roll, I could not claim that this prevented the SA from removing the EL model from play as a casualty.

-Yad

You are claiming that "at this stage" is an instant in time. It isnt.

Your entire argument fails at this point. And, again, ignores that the same rule denied WBB from working, as it was a special rule.

If it says removes from play as a casualty and SA removes as a casualty now, then I would say it specifies clear enough for me.

wowsmash wrote:If it says removes from play as a casualty and SA removes as a casualty now, then I would say it specifies clear enough for me.

That isnt what is being asked for when you are asked to specify. If you pay attention to the actual CONTEXT of the rule, you have to specify you work against SA in order to fulfil this criteria

AGAIN: Read ATSKNF. That is EXACTLY what is meant by specify. THere is absolutely no way to argue that EL or RP specify that they operate against SA.

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

Not from sweeping advance, no. It did its job.

And at the end of the phase is the unit destroyed? If you are allowed to take an EL roll is the unit still destroyed? Everything else is irrelevant as if you are allowed an EL roll you have saved the unit. A special rule saved the unit. The unit is no longer destroyed, what do you think rescued means? How is this not rescuing the unit?

The order of operations is this -
SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation
with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance
SA - ATSKNF - Consolidate back into Melee (or essentially never leave melee)
And how it's proposed
SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL
That's a huge difference.

And rescuing the unit, which you cannot do without permission. Do YOU how a permissive ruleset works? You do not have permission to rescue the unit, which a successful EL roll does. How do you not see this?

Such as SA saying "for them, the fight is over". That isn't a rule, that's just fluff. Their fight is over because any model removed as a casualty is typically at the end of their fight at that stage.

And what special insight do you have that you get to decide that? It is not fluff it is clarification. It is a sentence giving an example to what the rule says to provide more context. You don't get to just discount a part of the paragraph that makes you wrong by labeling it "fluff". You do not get to make that determination.

With how sweeping advance is worded now (because it "was not" the same in the previous book), it is VERY different. It does not say the unit is destroyed (as everyone is saying), it says Removed as casualty. The LAST rulebook said destroyed. The LAST rulebook said they're removed immediately. Not, removed from play. Not, removed as casualty. Just, Removed. Very Different!

No, it says destroyed. Try reading the rule again. It is even in bold. "...the falling back unit is caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed.

It also says immediately. "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties." Only the last rulebook said destroyed and immediately? Try again.

Or is that just fluff?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

wowsmash wrote:If it says removes from play as a casualty and SA removes as a casualty now, then I would say it specifies clear enough for me.

That isnt what is being asked for when you are asked to specify. If you pay attention to the actual CONTEXT of the rule, you have to specify you work against SA in order to fulfil this criteria

AGAIN: Read ATSKNF. That is EXACTLY what is meant by specify.

nosferatu1001 wrote: THere is absolutely no way to argue that EL or RP specify that they operate against SA.

I actually agree with this In point of fact we're, or at least I'm, not arguing that EL operates against SA. It's pretty obvious that it can't. What is allowed is to roll for EL after the SA has been resolved. See my post before this one.

-Yad

Yad - I responded to it. You are taking "at this stage" to be an instant, when it isnt, and discount "for them the battle is over", with no justification for doing so, AND ignore that by rescuing the unit (making an EL roll - unit was destroyed, unit is NO LONGER destroyed, unit has been rescued *by definition* from destruction) directly contradicts the requirements of SA

You have no rules support, at all, for making that EL roll. None

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

Not from sweeping advance, no. It did its job.

And at the end of the phase is the unit destroyed? If you are allowed to take an EL roll is the unit still destroyed? Everything else is irrelevant as if you are allowed an EL roll you have saved the unit. A special rule saved the unit. The unit is no longer destroyed, what do you think rescued means? How is this not rescuing the unit?

I think that that is the wrong way to approach this. A unit doesn't have to be destroyed for the entire phase in order to satisfy the SA rule mechanic. All that SA does is destroy and remove the unit when it is resolved. If the unit (in this scenario the EL model) comes back at the end of the phase, SA doesn't care.

The order of operations is this -
SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation
with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance
SA - ATSKNF - Consolidate back into Melee (or essentially never leave melee)
And how it's proposed
SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL
That's a huge difference.

And rescuing the unit, which you cannot do without permission. Do YOU how a permissive ruleset works? You do not have permission to rescue the unit, which a successful EL roll does. How do you not see this?

" The only way to 'rescue' a unit from a SA is to stop the SA from happening."

Citation needed. Totally unsupported and contrary to the rules for SA

Kevin949 wrote:
Honestly, I'm starting to move over to this side of the fence. Don't think I'll play it this way because I KNOW my gaming group would just not play me anymore, but I see it.

And not that it matters but the GW website states that "Models with ever living are always allowed a reanimation protocols roll." LoL Again, for what it's worth.

It's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule.

Again, I don't play with Necrons. I play against them a lot though. In my last tournament, I played 3 necron players in my 3 matches. Got screwed with that EL off a SA a few times. It sucks. I honestly don't know ANY Necron player that doesn't play with that. If your gaming group would just not play you anymore then perhaps they don't want to play 40k because that is the rule of the game lol.

"t's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule. "

Yet you havent provided any rules support for this, contrary to the rules of the forum. Please do so.

robzidious wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Honestly, I'm starting to move over to this side of the fence. Don't think I'll play it this way because I KNOW my gaming group would just not play me anymore, but I see it.

And not that it matters but the GW website states that "Models with ever living are always allowed a reanimation protocols roll." LoL Again, for what it's worth.

It's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule.

Again, I don't play with Necrons. I play against them a lot though. In my last tournament, I played 3 necron players in my 3 matches. Got screwed with that EL off a SA a few times. It sucks. I honestly don't know ANY Necron player that doesn't play with that. If your gaming group would just not play you anymore then perhaps they don't want to play 40k because that is the rule of the game lol.

Well, I was mostly joking with that statement in that they already hate playing against my necrons enough as it is. Secondly, necrons now have a decent amount of assault response units that there shouldn't be many situations (as compared to the third edition codex) where they're getting swept anymore.

Also, it "is" a side of the fence. That is the nature of a debate/discussion.

Nos, what does now, at this time, at this point, in the current circumstance mean?
Taking that into the context of the sentence it reads as during the SA step. Are you really arguing that "at this stage" means henceforth? Cos that's when the "fall back on english" part of the raw falls down.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"t's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule. "

Yet you havent provided any rules support for this, contrary to the rules of the forum. Please do so.

Ok check Necrons codex entry for Everliving. That's all the rules support you need really. If a model is removed as a casulaty with everliving place a counter where that model was and at the end of the phase you roll for reanimation for that model.

I'm not sure what other rule you need me to provide. It's in their codex. Again EVERY single Necron player I have played against ( and I have played against many believe me) use EL after a sweeping advance. You finish all combats and assaults and at the end of the phase, if they are able to do so (i.e. don't have models position in such a fashion as to prevent them from rolling EL) they get to make an EL roll for each model with EL that was removed as a casualty in that phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Honestly, I'm starting to move over to this side of the fence. Don't think I'll play it this way because I KNOW my gaming group would just not play me anymore, but I see it.

And not that it matters but the GW website states that "Models with ever living are always allowed a reanimation protocols roll." LoL Again, for what it's worth.

It's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule.

Again, I don't play with Necrons. I play against them a lot though. In my last tournament, I played 3 necron players in my 3 matches. Got screwed with that EL off a SA a few times. It sucks. I honestly don't know ANY Necron player that doesn't play with that. If your gaming group would just not play you anymore then perhaps they don't want to play 40k because that is the rule of the game lol.

Well, I was mostly joking with that statement in that they already hate playing against my necrons enough as it is. Secondly, necrons now have a decent amount of assault response units that there shouldn't be many situations (as compared to the third edition codex) where they're getting swept anymore.

Also, it "is" a side of the fence. That is the nature of a debate/discussion.

I understand. EL is a crazy rule. We all hate it (who don't play Necrons). I believe there is a side of the fence in debate/discussion when there is no clarity in the rule. This however is not the case. It is absolutely clear in the rules that units with EL get to make a roll to reanimate at the end of the phase if they were removed as a casualty in that phase.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Lets take another look kevin. See its still part of the sentence telling you what the rules are and how they function, how can you determine what is fluff and what is not fluff in this instance? Do you have privileged discourse with the people who wrote the rules? Do you have a magic ring telling you what is a rule and what isn't a rule in the same sentence. Is there something that tips you off to it? Or is it you just thinking that it is fluff?

Furthermore when you place that token for EL you are placing it during the SA I assume, yes? If so you need a sentence saying that you can place it during a SA, otherwise it cannot function due to the no special rules restriction in SA.
So following the system you laid out


SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation

with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance
SA - ATSKNF - Consolidate back into Melee (or essentially never leave melee)

And how it's proposed

SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL

See you missed a part here

SA - Removed as casualty (EL kicks in here during the SA because you place the token for EL yes? If so please cite permission with regards to both EL and the restriction of special rules by SA) - Consolidation

I don't appreciate your tone or snide comments so I'm not going to respond to you with a counter-argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Kevin - so you get to rescue the unit?

Yes or No. Simple question - EL Cryptek is Swept, and you try to rescue him by rolling for EL. IFd you succeed, has the UNIT that was swept been rescued?

Yes, or No.

Once you answer that question you will see how RAW you are wrong.

Simple Answer - No.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

wowsmash wrote:If it says removes from play as a casualty and SA removes as a casualty now, then I would say it specifies clear enough for me.

That isnt what is being asked for when you are asked to specify. If you pay attention to the actual CONTEXT of the rule, you have to specify you work against SA in order to fulfil this criteria

AGAIN: Read ATSKNF. That is EXACTLY what is meant by specify. THere is absolutely no way to argue that EL or RP specify that they operate against SA.

ATSKNF stops SA from ever happening, it does not allow the trigger to "remove as casualties". Again, it's not the same thing. RP I'd never argue worked against SA, that's an obvious one that it doesn't.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And you're still saving the destroyed unit without a rule specifically allowing you to do so - which is what SA requires.

Not from sweeping advance, no. It did its job.

And at the end of the phase is the unit destroyed? If you are allowed to take an EL roll is the unit still destroyed? Everything else is irrelevant as if you are allowed an EL roll you have saved the unit. A special rule saved the unit. The unit is no longer destroyed, what do you think rescued means? How is this not rescuing the unit?

The order of operations is this -
SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation
with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance
SA - ATSKNF - Consolidate back into Melee (or essentially never leave melee)
And how it's proposed
SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL
That's a huge difference.

And rescuing the unit, which you cannot do without permission. Do YOU how a permissive ruleset works? You do not have permission to rescue the unit, which a successful EL roll does. How do you not see this?

Such as SA saying "for them, the fight is over". That isn't a rule, that's just fluff. Their fight is over because any model removed as a casualty is typically at the end of their fight at that stage.

And what special insight do you have that you get to decide that? It is not fluff it is clarification. It is a sentence giving an example to what the rule says to provide more context. You don't get to just discount a part of the paragraph that makes you wrong by labeling it "fluff". You do not get to make that determination.

With how sweeping advance is worded now (because it "was not" the same in the previous book), it is VERY different. It does not say the unit is destroyed (as everyone is saying), it says Removed as casualty. The LAST rulebook said destroyed. The LAST rulebook said they're removed immediately. Not, removed from play. Not, removed as casualty. Just, Removed. Very Different!

No, it says destroyed. Try reading the rule again. It is even in bold. "...the falling back unit is caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed.

It also says immediately. "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties." Only the last rulebook said destroyed and immediately? Try again.

Or is that just fluff?

Where is destroyed defined in the rulebook, not pertaining to vehicles? And where does it say Destroyed is more dead then removed as casualty? Also, why on page 429 would they have a reference to units surviving sweeping advance and still making a fall back? ATSKNF just causes them to stay locked in combat, so they can't be talking about that. What else saves you from sweeping advance but doesn't lock you in combat?

You're pretty funny, thinking (or rather, assuming) that I felt that sentence made me wrong. So if it's for clarification, it's no different a clarification than any unit being removed as a casualty. It's not special to SA, as you are trying to claim.

Ok, the whole "destroyed" comment was aimed more at that was THE ONLY THING THE OLD RULE BOOK SAID. The sixth rulebook has more detailed information about what actually happens and how, precisely, it is resolved.

Yad wrote:I think that that is the wrong way to approach this. A unit doesn't have to be destroyed for the entire phase in order to satisfy the SA rule mechanic. All that SA does is destroy and remove the unit when it is resolved. If the unit (in this scenario the EL model) comes back at the end of the phase, SA doesn't care.

If the unit is not destroyed at the end of the phase it is not destroyed. SA has no feelings so doesn't care about anything. But, the unit is still not destroyed as the rule requires. SA destroys and removes the unit. If the unit comes back it is not destroyed. The rule requires destruction to be satisfied.

Rescuing a unit from SA would mean that you've somehow stopped the SA rule mechanic from being executed (e.g., ATSKNF). This is not what is occurring with regards to EL. EL does not stop SA. You cannot rescue an EL model from SA. It will be caught, destroyed, and removed as a casualty just as the SA rule specifies. After that SA 'washes its hands' of it. Its job is done.

Define rescue. Then tell me how a unit that survives a SA by not being dead anymore isn't a rule rescuing the unit.

I think you're being a little to critical here. The point he was making was to call out the difference between the previous edition and this one. Namely the inclusion of RFPaaC. I'll agree that it was a bit hard to follow and could've been worded better.

False. He was making a claim that the rules didn't say what the rules say. His claim was that the 6th edition does not say destroyed and does not say immediately, which is not true. His claim was that the rules are vastly different in this edition by not saying those two things. But it DOES say those two things so the rules are NOT vastly different from the previous editions.

I simply follow the rules as written, what more support does one need

Simply saying "I follow the RAW" without any support that the rules actually say what you claim is not a valid argument. We have shown definitions, rules, and proof to support our claim. You submit opinions and no rules support whatever. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:Ok, the whole "destroyed" comment was aimed more at that was THE ONLY THING THE OLD RULE BOOK SAID. The sixth rulebook has more detailed information about what actually happens and how, precisely, it is resolved.

Just like your interpretation of this rule the words that are written defy your claim. If you wanted to claim that you should have said that. But since you didn't...

Page 429 is in reference to a unit that fails their morale check and is not caught in a sweeping advance. They survived the SA by beating their opponent in the initiative check and getting away. Obvious.

Captain Antivas wrote:Simply saying "I follow the RAW" without any support that the rules actually say what you claim is not a valid argument. We have shown definitions, rules, and proof to support our claim. You submit opinions and no rules support whatever. Try again.

What definition or support have you provided? You're not even getting the phases in which these actions take place correct, much less supporting the actual rule which allows EL to be rolled off a SA.

The everliving rule in the Necron codex specifically allows a model with EL to get a counter placed on the board when it is removed as a casualty. At the end of the phase, roll for EL and they get back up. Nothing from the SA rule even effects EL...at all...not in one single way. They don't occur simultaneously.

Kevin - unit was destroyed. Unit is now alive. Yet it HASNT been rescued?

I guess when you restart someones heart (clinical death) you havent rescued them?

THe unit was rescued, you have broken SA.

Liturgies - SA isnt a step. "For them the BATTLE is over" tells you EXACTLY the duration of SA - the rest of the battle. STop ignoring inconvenient parts of the rules?

Robzidious - you have failed to provide any rules that counters SA requirement that the special rule SPECIFIES that it works against SA. Try again

Specific rule of when removed as a casualty activate special rule overrides general removed as casualty .
Pot kettle black, sir.

So you have switched from "at this stage" to "for them the battle is over". So you do give that the model may have rules that allow it to come back later?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Robzidious - you have failed to provide any rules that counters SA requirement that the special rule SPECIFIES that it works against SA. Try again

The special rule doesn't work against SA. There is no special rule that can save a unit from sweeping advance (ATSKNF being an exception)

EL doesn't save you from the SA.. It happens...the unit dies. No ifs ands or buts about that.

EL is a special rule relevant to Necrons which allows models with the special rule to reanimate in the place where their counter is at the end of the phase.

Trying to apply a real life example of a "rescue" to a game based completely on science fiction and fantasy is silly.

If you don't get that, then I don't know what to tell you. The rules support is in the BRB and the Necrons codex under the Everliving entry. I can say it til I'm blue in the face, but apparently that's not getting through to some posters.

I don't know what else can be said by me on this issue. I think myself and others have stated numerous times how it works, even going so far as to break down HOW it works WITH full rules support multiple times. If you don't understand that, that's your problem.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Yad wrote:I think that that is the wrong way to approach this. A unit doesn't have to be destroyed for the entire phase in order to satisfy the SA rule mechanic. All that SA does is destroy and remove the unit when it is resolved. If the unit (in this scenario the EL model) comes back at the end of the phase, SA doesn't care.

If the unit is not destroyed at the end of the phase it is not destroyed. SA has no feelings so doesn't care about anything. But, the unit is still not destroyed as the rule requires. SA destroys and removes the unit. If the unit comes back it is not destroyed. The rule requires destruction to be satisfied.

And that right there is the mistake you're making. When you execute the SA rule mechanic what do you do? You destroy and immediately remove the models (as casualties). That's it, there is nothing more that SA requires. You've satisfied every point in the SA rule. Now at the end of the phase you need to resolve the EL tokens. Rolling for them does not invalidate the execution of the SA rule.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Yad wrote:Rescuing a unit from SA would mean that you've somehow stopped the SA rule mechanic from being executed (e.g., ATSKNF). This is not what is occurring with regards to EL. EL does not stop SA. You cannot rescue an EL model from SA. It will be caught, destroyed, and removed as a casualty just as the SA rule specifies. After that SA 'washes its hands' of it. Its job is done.

Define rescue. Then tell me how a unit that survives a SA by not being dead anymore isn't a rule rescuing the unit.

Ok. To rescue a unit from SA you need to stop the SA from happening. Example --> ATSKNF

I think you're being a little to critical here. The point he was making was to call out the difference between the previous edition and this one. Namely the inclusion of RFPaaC. I'll agree that it was a bit hard to follow and could've been worded better.

False. He was making a claim that the rules didn't say what the rules say. His claim was that the 6th edition does not say destroyed and does not say immediately, which is not true. His claim was that the rules are vastly different in this edition by not saying those two things. But it DOES say those two things so the rules are NOT vastly different from the previous editions.

Kevin, it might be snide but it is correct. You are insisting that a part of the rules, where it is clearly in the same sentence of how a rule works, is just fluff. I wonder where you might get that info. Thus all the comments about magic rings and what not. Back to the issue at hand though. You cannot use EL during SA, because you would be placing a token when the model was removed as a causalty. The SA rule states that no special rule can be used to save the unit, which EL is a special rule. Now at this point if you can come up with a counter arguement to the previous post I made using you own step by step process and still have a viable counter arguement I will be shocked..... Ignore all the other stuff, because I was making a point.

Liturgies, oh my, EL is not specific it is a general, whenever a model with this rule is removed from play as a casualty is not specific. See that whenever there, that makes it a blanket statement, also known as a general statement.Thus countering your whole EL is more specific than SA. Futhermore, that whole thing about no special rule being used, unless specified thing, kind of makes your arguement really weak. See no special rules means no activation or trigger effects can be used unless it says something like, in the case os SA do this instead of removing the models, or in case of SA still place the token for EL. Since there is nothing like that in EL you cannot, in any way shape or form, use EL. Meaning no token, no roll at end of phase.....

Yad you are missing the point of no special rules are allowed to save the unit, unless specified. If you place the EL token during the SA, then you have used a special rule in an attempt to save a unit in the SA. Which SA disallows unless the special rules specify that it can be used during SA.

Address the issue at hand instead of going round about it. If the unit survives a SA to fight on how were they not rescued?

robzidious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:"t's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule. "

Yet you havent provided any rules support for this, contrary to the rules of the forum. Please do so.

Ok check Necrons codex entry for Everliving. That's all the rules support you need really. If a model is removed as a casulaty with everliving place a counter where that model was and at the end of the phase you roll for reanimation for that model.

I'm not sure what other rule you need me to provide. It's in their codex. Again EVERY single Necron player I have played against ( and I have played against many believe me) use EL after a sweeping advance. You finish all combats and assaults and at the end of the phase, if they are able to do so (i.e. don't have models position in such a fashion as to prevent them from rolling EL) they get to make an EL roll for each model with EL that was removed as a casualty in that phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Honestly, I'm starting to move over to this side of the fence. Don't think I'll play it this way because I KNOW my gaming group would just not play me anymore, but I see it.

And not that it matters but the GW website states that "Models with ever living are always allowed a reanimation protocols roll." LoL Again, for what it's worth.

It's not a side of the fence to stand on really, Kevin. It's the rule. Like it or not (and I hate it believe me) they get to make a EL roll after a sweep. It's just the rule.

Again, I don't play with Necrons. I play against them a lot though. In my last tournament, I played 3 necron players in my 3 matches. Got screwed with that EL off a SA a few times. It sucks. I honestly don't know ANY Necron player that doesn't play with that. If your gaming group would just not play you anymore then perhaps they don't want to play 40k because that is the rule of the game lol.

Well, I was mostly joking with that statement in that they already hate playing against my necrons enough as it is. Secondly, necrons now have a decent amount of assault response units that there shouldn't be many situations (as compared to the third edition codex) where they're getting swept anymore.

Also, it "is" a side of the fence. That is the nature of a debate/discussion.

I understand. EL is a crazy rule. We all hate it (who don't play Necrons). I believe there is a side of the fence in debate/discussion when there is no clarity in the rule. This however is not the case. It is absolutely clear in the rules that units with EL get to make a roll to reanimate at the end of the phase if they were removed as a casualty in that phase.

Pretty much what he said. This is the way I understand the rule as well. You can jump up and down, shout or repeat yourself all you like but this the way it was intended to be used. At best we're stuck with a roll off and then continues the game. At worst we pack up and stop playing each other.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Kevin, it might be snide but it is correct. You are insisting that a part of the rules, where it is clearly in the same sentence of how a rule works, is just fluff. I wonder where you might get that info. Thus all the comments about magic rings and what not. Back to the issue at hand though. You cannot use EL during SA, because you would be placing a token when the model was removed as a causalty. The SA rule states that no special rule can be used to save the unit, which EL is a special rule. Now at this point if you can come up with a counter arguement to the previous post I made using you own step by step process and still have a viable counter arguement I will be shocked..... Ignore all the other stuff, because I was making a point.

Liturgies, oh my, EL is not specific it is a general, whenever a model with this rule is removed from play as a casualty is not specific. See that whenever there, that makes it a blanket statement, also known as a general statement.Thus countering your whole EL is more specific than SA. Futhermore, that whole thing about no special rule being used, unless specified thing, kind of makes your arguement really weak. See no special rules means no activation or trigger effects can be used unless it says something like, in the case os SA do this instead of removing the models, or in case of SA still place the token for EL. Since there is nothing like that in EL you cannot, in any way shape or form, use EL. Meaning no token, no roll at end of phase.....

Yad you are missing the point of no special rules are allowed to save the unit, unless specified. If you place the EL token during the SA, then you have used a special rule in an attempt to save a unit in the SA. Which SA disallows unless the special rules specify that it can be used during SA.

In general models cannot come back from being removed as a casualty. A situation where a model is allowed to try to come back is by definition a specific rule. A specific rule can be applied in general to certain units or situations but it does not make it a general rule. Also your arguement is based on reading a sentece out of context. A context that is clear and a meaning for "at this stage" that I have tried to explain to you.

liturgies of blood wrote:Specific rule of when removed as a casualty activate special rule overrides general removed as casualty .
Pot kettle black, sir.

So, the special rule mentions Sweeping Advance? Otherwise you still have failed to find >>>>>>SPECIFIC <<<<<<< mention of Sweeping Advance in the special rule, as required by the Sweeping ADvance Rule

EL works on EVERY instance of Removed as a Casualty. EVERY instance. THis is a GENERAL rule on being removed as a casualty
Sweeping Advance is a SPECIFIC RULE about being removed as a casualty, as it ONLY applies when SA is triggered. By definition this is the more specifric rule

liturgies of blood wrote:So you have switched from "at this stage" to "for them the battle is over". So you do give that the model may have rules that allow it to come back later?

No, I have stated that both applies. At this stage, when read in context (the same context you have failed to acknowledge, invalidating your argument at every step) it isnt a single instant. Thats just fact.


The model has rules that allow it to come back from RaaC, but not agaiunsit SA. BEcause, as has been pointed out, SA tells you waht the rule needs to say for it to work.

Rob - and, again, you cannot find specific mention of Sweeping Advance. Hell, you even note that the unit has been rescued by EL, yet dont think this breaks SA. At this point you are simply ignoring real, actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Specific rule of when removed as a casualty activate special rule overrides general removed as casualty .
Pot kettle black, sir.

So, the special rule mentions Sweeping Advance? Otherwise you still have failed to find >>>>>>SPECIFIC <<<<<<< mention of Sweeping Advance in the special rule, as required by the Sweeping ADvance Rule

EL works on EVERY instance of Removed as a Casualty. EVERY instance. THis is a GENERAL rule on being removed as a casualty
Sweeping Advance is a SPECIFIC RULE about being removed as a casualty, as it ONLY applies when SA is triggered. By definition this is the more specifric rule

liturgies of blood wrote:So you have switched from "at this stage" to "for them the battle is over". So you do give that the model may have rules that allow it to come back later?

No, I have stated that both applies. At this stage, when read in context (the same context you have failed to acknowledge, invalidating your argument at every step) it isnt a single instant. Thats just fact.


The model has rules that allow it to come back from RaaC, but not agaiunsit SA. BEcause, as has been pointed out, SA tells you waht the rule needs to say for it to work.

Rob - and, again, you cannot find specific mention of Sweeping Advance. Hell, you even note that the unit has been rescued by EL, yet dont think this breaks SA. At this point you are simply ignoring real, actual rules.

Nope. Not ignoring real actual rules. The real actual rule states when a model with EL is removed as a casualty you replace it with an EL counter. At the end of the phase you roll to see if they get back up (if the condtions for such are met)

Nothing breaks SA with this. The SA happens. That's how the model is destroyed. There is no "specific mention" of sweeping advance in the EL rule because there is no need for it.

Ah, so when the EL rule saves the unit from being destroyed, or rescues the unit from destruction, and does so WITHOUT specifically mentionig SA, you ARENT breaking the SA rules?

Odd, because when you read the actual rules that is exactly what you are doing.

Captain Antivas wrote:Address the issue at hand instead of going round about it. If the unit survives a SA to fight on how were they not rescued?

I'll give it one more try and then stick a fork in it.

The unit does not survive the SA. They cannot be rescued. EL does not, cannot, will not, stop a SA from happening. You must however resolve the EL tokens that remain on the battlefield.

-Yad

Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

No, they are two totally separate rules which have nothing to do with one another and are resolved independently from one another with different triggers and timing.

doesnt a model with EL have to be rejoined to the unit he was apart of before he died?

How is this possible if the other models in the unit are dead from a SA?

In a permissive ruleset, what gives a unit permission to kill a Necron model at the end of the phase? This is key.

1. The EL model is removed AS A CASUALTY when the enemy unit does a sweeping advance. Regardless of SA text, a token is placed according to permission in the Codex.

2. What prevents the Necron player for rolling for EL at the end of the phase like the Codex tells him to. Nothing, so he rolls.

3. At the end of the phase, the EL model is back, what rule gives the unit permission to kill the Necron model AT THIS TIME? No rule. In a permissive ruleset, you DO NOT have permission to kill that Necron with EL and remove it as a casualty again because you already did in a previous stage.

Where does the rule say SA removes a model as a casualty at the end of the phase? It doesn't.

DR, as has been pointed out, the FAQ clarifies that if a unit is wiped out and an EL model comes back, it is simply placed within 3" of the token.

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Even if the rule in 4th said in exact words, the RAW wording now is changed so it's completely unrelated. Even if Necrons didn't used to be able to, now they can.

The "destroyed" part of the rule for some people in 5th edition was the key point that some people looked at to decide. Now the wording has changed from "destroyed" to "removed as a casualty". I don't think this is a coincidence.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Even if the rule in 4th said in exact words, the RAW wording now is changed so it's completely unrelated. Even if Necrons didn't used to be able to, now they can.

The "destroyed" part of the rule for some people in 5th edition was the key point that some people looked at to decide. Now the wording has changed from "destroyed" to "removed as a casualty". I don't think this is a coincidence.

You STILL aren't allowed to save the unit in any way unless you're given explicit permission to though. That works just as it always has, which is why people are quoting old rules.

Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Even if the rule in 4th said in exact words, the RAW wording now is changed so it's completely unrelated. Even if Necrons didn't used to be able to, now they can.

The "destroyed" part of the rule for some people in 5th edition was the key point that some people looked at to decide. Now the wording has changed from "destroyed" to "removed as a casualty". I don't think this is a coincidence.

It still says destroyed.

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

Even though St. Celestine is Fearless, yes SA would stop her from returning. Why? Because her Miraculous Intervention does not specify that it counters SA, like ATSKNF does. It really is that simple.

Edit: To further clarify. If St. Celestine were to get back up from her MI after being SA'd, she'd still be breaking the rule of SA saying that, "for them the battle is over." If St. Celestine gets back up, then for her the battle isn't over, thus breaking the SA rule. Ditto for EL.

robzidious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

No, they are two totally separate rules which have nothing to do with one another and are resolved independently from one another with different triggers and timing.

Incorrect. "for them the battle is over" and "at this stage" tells you EXACTLY the duration of Sweeping Advance.

Again: you have no rules support to counter that you are saving / rescuing / returning the unit to the battle despite *explicit* instructions to the contrary. Find specific permission to save the unit, as required by SA, or you must concede.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

No, they are two totally separate rules which have nothing to do with one another and are resolved independently from one another with different triggers and timing.

Incorrect. "for them the battle is over" and "at this stage" tells you EXACTLY the duration of Sweeping Advance.

Again: you have no rules support to counter that you are saving / rescuing / returning the unit to the battle despite *explicit* instructions to the contrary. Find specific permission to save the unit, as required by SA, or you must concede.

Again EL special rule and the statement about the unit being "wiped out" from the FAQ. There's your permission (as has been stated multiple times in this thread). I'm done arguing this.

robzidious wrote:Again EL special rule and the statement about the unit being "wiped out" from the FAQ. There's your permission (as has been stated multiple times in this thread). I'm done arguing this.

Unless that FAQ changes EL to say that it works against SA, it doesn't.

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

St. C is fearless and therefore cannot be swept.
But yes - if she was, she could not come back.

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

A fearless unit cannot fail a morale check so this situation is irrelevant.

So an example from a previous edition is not relevant to the debate? I couldn't agree more. That is why WBB and what happened in 5th ed are no longer analogous.

liturgies of blood wrote:So an example from a previous edition is not relevant to the debate? I couldn't agree more. That is why WBB and what happened in 5th ed are no longer analogous.

When it is the exact same prohibition it is exactly analogous, you just refuse to acknowledge it. The prohibition on "no special rule " hasnot changed between editions. Any argument that a special rule can rescue a unit is doomed from the start, unless if specifies it works against SA.

Any rule argument against "battle is over"? You're certainly rescuing a unit and trying to make sure its battle is not over, so unless you can find specific allowance you still have no argument

Rob where in the FAQ or special rule does it mentioned SA? It doesn't. Then you still cannot show permission. Concession accepted.

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a wargamer defending a wording from a rulebook, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that game store deliberatin' and conjugatin' the rules as written, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must concede! The defense rests.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:So an example from a previous edition is not relevant to the debate? I couldn't agree more. That is why WBB and what happened in 5th ed are no longer analogous.

When it is the exact same prohibition it is exactly analogous, you just refuse to acknowledge it. The prohibition on "no special rule " hasnot changed between editions. Any argument that a special rule can rescue a unit is doomed from the start, unless if specifies it works against SA.

I thought I was done with this but you keep pulling me back in

There is no argument to be made that EL saves/rescues a unit from a successful SA. Regarding Necrons, it's just not possible. Here's an example to better enable you to comprehend what I'm arguing.

Let's say that you are witness to one person shooting and killing another. In this scenario you just happen to have a widget that can bring anything back from the dead. You rush forward and use your widget to bring back the person that was shot. The question I put to you is, did you rescue the person from being shot? My answer is no, they were shot and killed. Your widget did not save/rescue the person from the shooting as it did not stop the shooting. What your widget did do was bring them back after the shooting occurred. What it did not do was was negate the shooting event from even occurring.

Now do you get what I'm arguing? EL does not save/rescue the unit from a SA because it cannot stop a SA from happening. It's like that ID/EW/FNP thread going on, the SA happened, and thinking that the EL somehow negates it and rescues the unit is just plain wrong. The unit cannot be rescued from a SA; the unit cannot be saved from a SA; the unit is destroyed and RFPaaC from a SA.

Legally placed EL tokens must still be rolled for at the end of the phase.


-Yad

The SA happened, the unit was destroyed, then the unit is not destroyed. How is that not rescuing them?

Captain Antivas wrote:The SA happened, the unit was destroyed, then the unit is not destroyed. How is that not rescuing them?

The only thing I can say to this line of thought is that you simply aren't understand how SA and EL interact, or more to the point, don't interact. You are oversimplifying (possibly even setting up a straw man) the rules. To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA. EL doesn't rescue them because it doesn't stop the SA from happening.

-Yad

False, that makes no sense. SA cannot be avoided they have to interact with EL since SA says the model is removed as a casualty, which triggers EL. Claiming they do not interact is ignoring the rules.

SA doesn't have to say it interacts with EL, it says no Special Rule or save can rescue them. SA interacts with ALL Special rules, which EL is. EL has to say it protects against SA, which it doesn't. Once again the rules defy your interpretation of them.

Captain Antivas wrote:False, that makes no sense. SA cannot be avoided they have to interact with EL since SA says the model is removed as a casualty, which triggers EL. Claiming they do not interact is ignoring the rules.

SA doesn't have to say it interacts with EL, it says no Special Rule or save can rescue them. SA interacts with ALL Special rules, which EL is. EL has to say it protects against SA, which it doesn't. Once again the rules defy your interpretation of them.

I had momentarily forgotten about the change to 6th edition (which if you had read my previous posts you would have known I was aware of it). The interaction, or lack thereof is not what you mean it to be. That's the jist of the my take on these two rules.

-Yad

Yad - " To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA"

You have been asked to cite a rule for this many, many times, and you ignore it.

Do so.

You also ignore that "for them the battle is over" is a rule you MUST apply. You are not applying it. You have rescued a model from being unable to take part int eh battle, and so you are breaking the rule.

You are ignoring the posts I directly challenge you on, and responding to posts from other people who just dont get that "no special rule" means thast. I am AWARE you dont disagree with me on this point, however others DO disagree, and are doing so without a single shred of rules support whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - " To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA"

You have been asked to cite a rule for this many, many times, and you ignore it.

Do so.

You also ignore that "for them the battle is over" is a rule you MUST apply. You are not applying it. You have rescued a model from being unable to take part int eh battle, and so you are breaking the rule.

You are ignoring the posts I directly challenge you on, and responding to posts from other people who just dont get that "no special rule" means thast. I am AWARE you dont disagree with me on this point, however others DO disagree, and are doing so without a single shred of rules support whatsoever.

Just as you say Yad is ignoring your question of citing a rule you are ignoring his answer.

SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

At the end of the Assault phase when all combats have been resolved being draws wins with passed LD's or sweeping advances (when all theses rules criteria have been met )the Necron codex which trumps the BRB , give's all models with RP/EL a chance to stand back up with certain restrictions ,in the codex and the current FAQ the EL rule has less restrictions if any to RP .

End result ,you roll for the EL token and if he gets back up tough luck for your opponent .

Rules citations

Basic VS advanced, in the BRB read it

Ever living

If a model with this special rule is REMOVED FROM PLAY AS A CASUALTYdo not add a reanimation counter.
Instead place an Everliving counter where the model was removed from play .
At the end of the phase,roll for this counter ust as you would for reanimation protocols counter .

If the model had joined a unit when it was REMOVED FROM PLAY AS A CASUALTY,and the roll was passed ,it must returned to play with a single wound , in coherency with that unit as explained in reanimation protocols .
If the model had not joined unit when it was removed as a casualty , it must be returned to play ,with a single wound ,within 3" of the counter
In either case ,the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models .
If the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that it is eligible to join ,it automatically joins one of those units (your choice).
If the model was locked in combat when it 'died ,and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in .
If the returning model cannot be placed ,for whatever reason ,it is lost and does not return .
If the roll was failed ,remove the counter from play

Necron FAQ

Q
If an entire unit ,including an attached character from a royal court ,is wiped out , do you get to make any reanimation protocol rolls ?
A
You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Everliving special rule .
Note in this case ,he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out .

There ignore them if you will come back with the same old "but you saved the unit " argument ,or the "for them the battle is over " or anything else you want .
RAW supports Yad and me and everyone else saying you get to roll for the EL counter !!!!!!!!!!

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

Your asserting SA is ongoing through the whole game which you have never proved in the 5th (which is now irrelevant )and in the 6th

I have given rules citations as asked for

Just for a laugh,
1 Show me where its says it must specifically state it works re SA for the rule to be allowed .
2 Show me how after and event has taken place and all rules regarding it have been met that it has not ended .
3 Give me a rule citation that states in this case BRB trumps codex
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

I skimmed the past four pages to this point. For those arguing that SA prevents the EL token from coming back (if it made its EL roll and succeeded) per the RAW from SA, I point you to the direction of Basic Vs Advanced' last paragraph.

We can all define this particular situation is a RAW conflict of rules, yes? Theres your answer.


Do the ones arguing for it to not work after a SA think itll be fixed in a future errata for the codex? Hell yes. Most of us would agree that it should prevent the EL token/model from coming back after a SA is made. However, as it sits RAW rules-wise, the model is allowed to (potentially) come back after a SA.

not "END OF!!!!!!!", shockingly enough. You have ignored every single argument in here.

"FOR THEM, THE BATTLE IS OVER"

Or are you claiming the battle is point in time? You keep ignoring the rules, after all.

1) In the context of the rule. The thing you keep ignoring. The thing that ATSKNF exemplifies. Read it.

2) See above. Stop ignoring it.

3) "unless otherwise specified" Done. Stop ignoring it

4) So you continue to insult? You lost the argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

No need to prove SA is a single point in time. That's like saying I made my first armor save with a model, therefore I will apply that to every armor save I make all game. SA states "as this stage". SA is limiting itself. SA is also adding the possibility that something may "save" the unit "at a later stage". Otherwise there would be no need for them to add "at this stage" to the rule.

"at this stage" is not point in time, when you read the context. Neither is "for them the battle is over"

nosferatu1001 wrote:not "END OF!!!!!!!", shockingly enough. You have ignored every single argument in here.

"FOR THEM, THE BATTLE IS OVER"

Or are you claiming the battle is point in time? You keep ignoring the rules, after all.

1) In the context of the rule. The thing you keep ignoring. The thing that ATSKNF exemplifies. Read it.

2) See above. Stop ignoring it.

3) "unless otherwise specified" Done. Stop ignoring it

4) So you continue to insult? You lost the argument.

For the the battle is over part of the rule used over and over ,re read my post i addressed that and did not ignore it

Point 1 SA happens and the unit is RFPAAC again not ignored addressed

Point 2 LOL answered already many times El does not stop SA it happens at the end of the phase after SA has been resolved

Point 3 pointing out your argument is saying the same thing over and over and giving an example of how it appears hence the child reference whether you take it as insulting or not does not lose an argument ,show me where its says in the rules that if when proving your argument to be right you insult or are deemed to insult someone it total nullifies the rule and allows the party insulted to make the ruling in there favor ?

No, you did not. You said it HAS been addresed, but failed to actually do so.

Try again.

1) Nope, you just simply dont understand the "specified" requirement. READ ATSKNF. That is what "specified" means.

2) Nope, youre ignoring "the battle is over" (para) part. Again.

3) No, you are claiming that people repeating the rules over and over are being childish, when you have not cited rules that actually address the points given in the thread.

You have lost the argument from a debating point because, yet again in a thread you resorted to insults, breaking the tenets of the forum

snakel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

Your asserting SA is ongoing through the whole game which you have never proved in the 5th (which is now irrelevant )and in the 6th

I have given rules citations as asked for

Just for a laugh,
1 Show me where its says it must specifically state it works re SA for the rule to be allowed .
2 Show me how after and event has taken place and all rules regarding it have been met that it has not ended .
3 Give me a rule citation that states in this case BRB trumps codex
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

The unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued at this stage.
You're rescuing the unit and were still at this stage.

What "outdated" rules set have I quoted? Codex only trumps BRB when there's a conflict - there's no conflict.
The rule is done resolving. Part of the resolution to the rule is that the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued.

Or are you also going to argue that I can bring back a model that was removed for any reason - I've resolved the wound and pulled the model. Rules are over, but my army list says there's 10 guys. I'm going to put this guy back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - " To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA"

You have been asked to cite a rule for this many, many times, and you ignore it.

Do so.

This is the same tired line you run again and again. You completely ignore what the opposing viewpoint is arguing while endlessly repeating "site the rule, site the rule, site the rule" . When the folks here are invariably discussing the rule and offering logical support for their positions. Your reminding me of another poster we had here a while back, fellow that went by the name of Gwar. But just so your virtual head doesn't explode, I'll indulge you.

The only rules I need site is the one we've been discussing this whole thread, the SA and EL rules themselves. I would urge you to re-read the two rules and understand the text and context of them. The whole purpose of SA is to destroy a unit and cause them to be RFPaaC. The only was to save or rescue such a unit would be to stop the SA from destroying it. The only way that can happen is also listed in the SA rule. Another special rule must be in place that specifically negates the SA from occurring. The only one that I'm aware of that can do that is ATSKNF.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You also ignore that "for them the battle is over" is a rule you MUST apply. You are not applying it. You have rescued a model from being unable to take part int eh battle, and so you are breaking the rule.

You are ignoring the posts I directly challenge you on, and responding to posts from other people who just dont get that "no special rule" means thast. I am AWARE you dont disagree with me on this point, however others DO disagree, and are doing so without a single shred of rules support whatsoever.

Not even close to accurate. I could pull a Sophocles here and say that I get the sense you are, in regards to your responses to those of the opposing viewpoint, being deliberately obtuse, but that would be poor form My previous posts, and actually other folks here, have addressed this. If one actually accepts it as a rule and not as some descriptive flare to the actual mechanic of destroying the unit and removing them as casualties (which is what I think of it as), it still only reinforces the point about not being able to save/rescue the unit from a SA. Which is exactly what the EL rule does not do.

I've got a feeling this thread is quickly devolving into a virtual circular firing squad.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

Your asserting SA is ongoing through the whole game which you have never proved in the 5th (which is now irrelevant )and in the 6th

I have given rules citations as asked for

Just for a laugh,
1 Show me where its says it must specifically state it works re SA for the rule to be allowed .
2 Show me how after and event has taken place and all rules regarding it have been met that it has not ended .
3 Give me a rule citation that states in this case BRB trumps codex
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

The unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued at this stage.
You're rescuing the unit and were still at this stage.

Rescuing the unit and were still at this stage? I'm having a bit of trouble dissecting what you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

rigeld2 wrote:What "outdated" rules set have I quoted? Codex only trumps BRB when there's a conflict - there's no conflict.
The rule is done resolving. Part of the resolution to the rule is that the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued.

Or are you also going to argue that I can bring back a model that was removed for any reason - I've resolved the wound and pulled the model. Rules are over, but my army list says there's 10 guys. I'm going to put this guy back.

That's just silly, you must know that's not what he means so why say it?

-Yad

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

The unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued at this stage.
You're rescuing the unit and were still at this stage.

Rescuing the unit and were still at this stage? I'm having a bit of trouble dissecting what you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

We've moved from the period of time the unit (not individual models which is what EL saves) exists to the one where the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued. We are at the stage of "cannot be rescued" for that unit.
Bringing the unit back (by allowing EL to resolve) rescues the unit - which cannot happen at this stage.

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:What "outdated" rules set have I quoted? Codex only trumps BRB when there's a conflict - there's no conflict.
The rule is done resolving. Part of the resolution to the rule is that the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued.

Or are you also going to argue that I can bring back a model that was removed for any reason - I've resolved the wound and pulled the model. Rules are over, but my army list says there's 10 guys. I'm going to put this guy back.

That's just silly, you must know that's not what he means so why say it?

Because he's been so emphatic wording it that way multiple times. Saying that the rule is over and done and ignored because it's done resolving is ludicrous. It needed to be pointed out.

Im sorry rigeld2, however I feel the need to break it down for you.

In simplistic terms, the rules in the BRB for SA state that you may not put a model/unit back on the board after it has suffered from an SA. Yes?
The rules in the Necron codex for EL state that at the end of the phase, you roll for that marker, and place the model with EL back onto the board, following the rules for the three inch move per the faq.


Tell me how is that not a conflict.

*I might add here though, that it makes no sense to have a line like "no special rule or save may save them; For them, the battle is over" with Basic Vs Advanced in the same book.*

"logical support for their answers" = making up rules. Show the ruke, cite the rule. Your opinion and logical support is irrelevant unless supported by a rule.

To call EL a save is incorrect. In no way are you saving the unit from SA. SA destroys the unit and all models in the unit. Yes, ATSKNF mentions SA as part of the rule, but that effect is immediate - it does so to allow the unit to stay in combat. Models with EL and are not saved from being killed by SA. There is no rescue or save happening during SA.

Remember - Sweeping Advance is an action performed by a unit, an action done at a certain time and then stops when the unit performs a new action. This is basic - your blast marker does not sit on the table permanently hitting anything that moves into the spot, you pick it up when the effect is done. Your unit in combat has no permission to kill or prevent a special rule at the end of the phase after combat has ended.

Can you cite rules support for "at this stage" meaning only for the time while SA is resolving?

Nemesor Dave wrote:To call EL a save is incorrect. In no way are you saving the unit from SA. SA destroys the unit and all models in the unit. Yes, ATSKNF mentions SA as part of the rule, but that effect is immediate - it does so to allow the unit to stay in combat. Models with EL and are not saved from being killed by SA. There is no rescue or save happening during SA.

Remember - Sweeping Advance is an action performed by a unit, an action done at a certain time and then stops when the unit performs a new action. This is basic - your blast marker does not sit on the table permanently hitting anything that moves into the spot, you pick it up when the effect is done. Your unit in combat has no permission to kill or prevent a special rule at the end of the phase after combat has ended.

No one claims EL is a save. Do you even read any posts we write? You do, however, save the unit. They were destroyed, then nit destroyed. How is this not saving the unit?

The the folks arguing the point that SA doesnt allow a save or special rule from bringing them back. I urge you read the rule for EL. The model has died. It has satisfied the rules for SA as the model only gets to make its roll at the end of the phase. If you wish to argue the timing of SA, see the next portion.

For those arguing the point that EL brings the model back period, I point you to Basic Vs Advanced. As the two rules conflict with each other, we are told to go by the codex' rule.

Again, it seems absolutely silly to include such a rule as Basic Vs Advanced when folks know that this will clash specifically with SA and DoG rules. We can all agree that a BRB faq will over-rule the codex in -ONLY- those two instances.

And once again you spout words that do not actually address the point being made. Try again. And this time, do it without completely ignoring the arguments made before you.

Xzerios wrote:The the folks arguing the point that SA doesnt allow a save or special rule from bringing them back. I urge you read the rule for EL. The model has died. It has satisfied the rules for SA as the model only gets to make its roll at the end of the phase. If you wish to argue the timing of SA, see the next portion.

For those arguing the point that EL brings the model back period, I point you to Basic Vs Advanced. As the two rules conflict with each other, we are told to go by the codex' rule.

Again, it seems absolutely silly to include such a rule as Basic Vs Advanced when folks know that this will clash specifically with SA and DoG rules. We can all agree that a BRB faq will over-rule the codex in -ONLY- those two instances.

I don't care about the model.

The unit is destroyed and cannot come back. Bringing back a model also brings the unit back.
What rule is allowing you to bring the unit back?

Maybe you'll answer it this time.

Captain Antivas wrote:"logical support for their answers" = making up rules. Show the ruke, cite the rule. Your opinion and logical support is irrelevant unless supported by a rule.

Then 99% of your posts and the majority of this forum is irrelevant. GW does a poor job of spelling things out, so we have to use Logic to figure out what they mean. Just look at your own posts in the EW/FNP thread. Mostly logic based. Even breaking out definitions of words.

Well, because the choir has clamored for rules (which I would expect us all to be intimately familiar with at this point of the argument), I repeat them for us all.

The rules from Ever Living:

Pg 29 Necron Codex wrote:
If a model with this special rule is removed as a casuality, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols. If the model had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, within 3" of the the counter. In either case, the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models. If the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that is eligible to join, it automatically joins on of those units (your choice). If the model was locked in close combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in, if the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return. If the roll was failed, remove the counter from play.

(quote maintained, including the grammatical error)

EL requires that a token be placed when the model with this special rule is removed as a causality.
It rolls to come back at the end of the phase to complete this special rule.
It can be denied this special rule, see rule entry for requirements to deny it this special rule.

The rules for Sweeping Advances

Pg 27-28 BRB, quoted excerpt from page 28 wrote:

If the winner's total (Initiative + dice roll) is equal to or greater than the foe's, the falling back unit is caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwise sent packing so demoralised that they won't return; its members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this state.; for them the battle is over.

(quote maintained, including the grammatical errors)

I italicized the portion that states the model is eligible for access to Ever Living.
I have underlined the parts that conflict with each other from the rules for the rules for Ever Living, and the rules for Sweeping Advances.

The rules from Basic Versus Advanced

Pg 7 BRB, last paragraph wrote:
On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

This is the last portion of the argument. This is where it lands in the end. Basic Versus Advanced. My Ever Living rule from the Necron Codex conflicts with the rules for Sweeping Advances in the BRB. As the BRB states right here on page seven; My codex rule supersedes the rules for Sweeping Advances. Argumentative time frame of Sweeping Advances and all possible arguments from the side that claims Ever Living is unable to work against Sweeping Advances ended right there. At this point, no matter how you wish to argue it, the end result will forever be that the BRB comes into conflict with the codex and this tells us that the codex rule overwrites the BRB. Same argument applies to Death or Glory as it too calls that no special rule or save can allow the model that attempted Death or Glory to come back.


Is it stupid? Yes. Blame GW on crappy rules that contradict themselves IN THE BRB. Expect an Errata on these two rules on the errata update for the BRB.

You're misapplying page 7. But I'm done. Have fun when it never gets FAQed. Again. And we have this discussion in a few months. Again.

Explain how Basic Versus Advanced was miss-applied. In the RAW from both rules, they come into conflict. Show me with rules where I am wrong. I was able to indulge in your (and Captain Antivas') request for rules to be cited. Why, after no mercy was shown would you expect the same amnesty I sought? You may recall on page two where I started in here that I was very much on the side of it not working. I still am to a degree. I understand what GW intends for Sweeping Advances and Death or Glory to do, however as they are written and how the rules for Ever Living/Divine Intervention are written; They cause a conflict with the other rule, which requires us to default to Basic Versus Advanced.

*Arguing that the model isnt allowed the special rule per the last sentence is invalidated. The line right before that sentence (I italicized it) means that the model has been given access to Ever Living by Sweeping Advances. This is why Basic Versus Advanced is brought in. If we arent going to follow the normal flow of sentence structure, Ill just start reading the book in Japanese standard sentence structure. :|*

Xzerios wrote:Explain how Basic Versus Advanced was miss-applied. In the RAW from both rules, they come into conflict. Show me with rules where I am wrong. I was able to indulge in your (and Captain Antivas') request for rules to be cited. Why, after no mercy was shown would you expect the same amnesty I sought? You may recall on page two where I started in here that I was very much on the side of it not working. I still am to a degree. I understand what GW intends for Sweeping Advances and Death or Glory to do, however as they are written and how the rules for Ever Living/Divine Intervention are written; They cause a conflict with the other rule, which requires us to default to Basic Versus Advanced.

I'll try bold this time.

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't care about the model.

The unit is destroyed and cannot come back. Bringing back a model also brings the unit back.
What rule is allowing you to bring the unit back?

You're misapplying page 7 because there isn't a rule stopping the model from coming back - there's a rule stopping the unit from coming back.
There's no conflict because EL deals with models, not units.
See the difference?

Page 3 Necron Codex Errata wrote:
Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (Pg 29)

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.

If you follow that through to its conclusion, we end right back at Basic Versus Advanced. The model that has Ever Living is the last model in that unit as it doesnt become its own brand new unit. Sweeping Advances says the unit caught by the Sweeping Advance may not come back. Conflict of rules once again.

Fragile wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:"logical support for their answers" = making up rules. Show the ruke, cite the rule. Your opinion and logical support is irrelevant unless supported by a rule.

Then 99% of your posts and the majority of this forum is irrelevant. GW does a poor job of spelling things out, so we have to use Logic to figure out what they mean. Just look at your own posts in the EW/FNP thread. Mostly logic based. Even breaking out definitions of words.

There is a vast difference between "logical support" and "logical support with rules." Notice the last part where I say your logical support matters only with a rules support as well? Try reading the whole thought before replying.

Xzerios wrote:Well, because the choir has clamored for rules (which I would expect us all to be intimately familiar with at this point of the argument), I repeat them for us all.

The rules from Ever Living:

Pg 29 Necron Codex wrote:
If a model with this special rule is removed as a casuality, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols. If the model had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, within 3" of the the counter. In either case, the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models. If the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that is eligible to join, it automatically joins on of those units (your choice). If the model was locked in close combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in, if the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return. If the roll was failed, remove the counter from play.

(quote maintained, including the grammatical error)

EL requires that a token be placed when the model with this special rule is removed as a causality.
It rolls to come back at the end of the phase to complete this special rule.
It can be denied this special rule, see rule entry for requirements to deny it this special rule.

This will be quick.... When placing the token for EL, are you doing that during the SA??? Specifically, during "Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit at this stage..."

So please, tell us in EL

Pg 29 Necron Codex wrote:
If a model with this special rule is removed as a casuality, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols. If the model had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, within 3" of the the counter. In either case, the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models. If the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that is eligible to join, it automatically joins on of those units (your choice). If the model was locked in close combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in, if the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return. If the roll was failed, remove the counter from play.

(quote maintained, including the grammatical error)


where are you allowed to place a token during SA? Seeings how EL is a special rule, and how it has no mention of SA, and is not specific in regards to removed from play in any way, because it is a blanket statement ( I say again)! So no, page 7 general versus specific does not take presidence here. Because the Codex is in no way more specific then the BRB rule. The BRB rule spells out what it is does, and what you need to do, and how if there are anyways to counteract its effects. Since EL, is not more specific, and does not have any rule in it allowing you to counter act the result of an SA you cannot use it.

Futhermore, if you take every single line of SA to be on its own then the special rule sentence never kicks in. They are linked, the work together, they are the same rule. Spliting hairs does nothing but cloud the issue.

The line right after, "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties." restricts the use of rules and saves, unless otherwise specified. So at this point it brings you back to the first problem I posed. Where in EL does it state you may place the token (SPECIFICALLY) during SA?



Also, for those of you trying to argue that the SA has happened and the the EL rule is used after that, you place the token when the model is removed yes? During the time of SA, so the EL rule is already being used. This invalidates you arguement of the SA has concluded and we go to end of phase. You are using a special rule during SA, which is not allowed, unless otherwise specified.....