We have a couple necron players in the club including me. One guy thinks that you still get RP rolls when falling back because of the second paragraph in RP. I told him first paragraph says get rid of all tokens they stay dead if you fall back from failed morale or the likes.

Only everliving tokens get to roll on fallbacks, sweeps included.

Given the new ruling on RFPAAC does this mean Everliving tokens will get an RP roll after a sweeping advance?

or does the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unitat this stage; for them tbe battle is over." clause kick in counting RP as other special rule?

If the unit falls back, the only reanimations you can make are ever-living rolls.

ex. Unit of warriors runs, they leave behind the dead, no reanimations rolled
unit of warriors with lord runs, lord died in combat, you'd roll for JUST him, no other warriors

If your entire unit is removed you can't get up unless you're ever living

You can roll RP for EL models after sweeping advance.

copper.talos wrote:
You can roll RP for EL models after sweeping advance.

Wow! I didn't even play it like that, Ive been giving my friends easier games!!!!

tgf wrote:

or does the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them tbe battle is over." clause kick in counting RP as other special rule?

Yes, both reanimation protocols & ever lying are special rules and since the sweeping advance rules clearly state that no special rules can be used to save the models.

Therefore, the proper way to play this IMO, is that if the Necron character actually gets swept, then it does not get to place an ever living token, as doing so would violate the sweeping advance rules.

However, if the character was simply killed during the combat and an EL token placed, then even if his former unit then gets swept, the model can attempt to get back up.

But Reanimation Protocol does not save the character, it brings it back to life after they die.

'Rescuing' a model would be a rule that somehow stops him from dying.
I don't think it counts as being rescued when you die and than come back to life.

I think any number of hospitals would disagree with you there

It also states the UNIT cannot be rescued - which you are doing

The unit was there
The unit was destroyed through SA
The unit tries to come back through rolling for EL

You have no permission to rescue the unit, because EL does not specify it works again SA. We can tell that through the simple expedient of EL not ever mentioning SA.

Copper remains wrong on this, and I disagree with Yak that EL models who were already "tokened" can come back, as they CERTAINLY are a member of the unit

EL happens at the end of phase not at the time of the sweeping advance. The model was not saved it died. Why would you not get everliving? You could still have 3 more melee combats between now and then.

On the original question:
If the unit falls back, all RP counters are picked up. EL counters are not picked up.

 yakface wrote:

tgf wrote:

or does the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them tbe battle is over." clause kick in counting RP as other special rule?

Yes, both reanimation protocols & ever lying are special rules and since the sweeping advance rules clearly state that no special rules can be used to save the models.

Therefore, the proper way to play this IMO, is that if the Necron character actually gets swept, then it does not get to place an ever living token, as doing so would violate the sweeping advance rules.

However, if the character was simply killed during the combat and an EL token placed, then even if his former unit then gets swept, the model can attempt to get back up.

Agreed.

 Mythra wrote:
EL happens at the end of phase not at the time of the sweeping advance. The model was not saved it died. Why would you not get everliving? You could still have 3 more melee combats between now and then.

Actually it was saved, otherwise it might give up a VP/KP eh?

According to what you're selling a unit would give up multiple VP's

No I am saying it doesn't happen at the time of the sweeping advance. It happens after so SA doesn't stop EL from happening later.

copper.talos wrote:
You can roll RP for EL models after sweeping advance.

Not RP you can't, you'd have failed a moral test at that point which causes your unit to fall back which means all RP counters are lost.

 Mythra wrote:
No I am saying it doesn't happen at the time of the sweeping advance. It happens after so SA doesn't stop EL from happening later.

Unit A was destroyed
YOu make an EL roll, and bring a model from unit A back

Unit A is now not destroyed. Cite page and paragraph that allows you to do this, in direct contradiction to the SA rules which requires a specific rule to ignore SA.

let us start with.

Sweeping Advance (Pg. 27 Top left. BRB) "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless other wise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

Now onto.

Reanimation Protocols: ((Pg 29 Top Left Necron Codex, 5th ed.) "Whenever a unit take one or more casualties, place counters or a suitable marker next to the unit.- If the unit make a fall back move remove any counter from it.- Reanimation Protocols cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols."

Then there is.

Ever-Living (Pg 29, Top Right, Necron Codex, 5th ed.) "if a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not place 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. "


Based on these rules a Model with the Reanimation Protocols and its unit if Sweeping Advanced cannot use there RP as the unit was wiped out. However, if that unit had a model with the Ever-Living Special Rule, only the model with the EL rule could make a RP check and then would become a unit by its self no longer part of the original unit, as that unit was destroyed in the SA. If the RP check was failed for the EL model then not only would the unit award a KP but so would the EL model, effectively giving up two KP's. One for the unit and one for the EL model in the unit. (Note: That all Models with the Ever-Living rule are Characters.)

Also Not that SA removes models as casualties and that you cannot save the unit from this without a special rule that lets you. As RP/EL checks happen after the model with said rules is removed from play as a causality I do not see how a EL check can be denied.
Maybe that helps.

Edit: removed, answered

BLADERIKER wrote:
let us start with.

Sweeping Advance (Pg. 27 Top left. BRB) "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless other wise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

Now onto.

Reanimation Protocols: ((Pg 29 Top Left Necron Codex, 5th ed.) "Whenever a unit take one or more casualties, place counters or a suitable marker next to the unit.- If the unit make a fall back move remove any counter from it.- Reanimation Protocols cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols."

Then there is.

Ever-Living (Pg 29, Top Right, Necron Codex, 5th ed.) "if a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not place 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. "


Based on these rules a Model with the Reanimation Protocols and its unit if Sweeping Advanced cannot use there RP as the unit was wiped out. However, if that unit had a model with the Ever-Living Special Rule, only the model with the EL rule could make a RP check and then would become a unit by its self no longer part of the original unit, as that unit was destroyed in the SA. If the RP check was failed for the EL model then not only would the unit award a KP but so would the EL model, effectively giving up two KP's. One for the unit and one for the EL model in the unit. (Note: That all Models with the Ever-Living rule are Characters.)

Also Not that SA removes models as casualties and that you cannot save the unit from this without a special rule that lets you. As RP/EL checks happen after the model with said rules is removed from play as a causality I do not see how a EL check can be denied.
Maybe that helps.

Agreed, the EL ability triggers AFTER it has been removed as a casualty, the SA rules IMO is designed to prevent arguments on multi-wound characters, ethernal warrior and FNP rules. One of those rules I could see being denied by the SA because they try to prevent the model being either ID'ed or removed as a casualty (same as armor/cover/inv. saves) but EL requires the model to be removed first so SA would trigger it not prevent it. RP would also be denied by the SA and can be justified in 2 ways: the unit fails it's moral check thus losing its RP for the models lost in the assault or in terms of SA, the entire unit is wiped so no RP.

Gwan123 wrote:
SA rules IMO is designed to prevent arguments on multi-wound characters, ethernal warrior and FNP rules.

None of those examples have anything to do with Sweeping Advance. It doesn't cause wounds - it doesn't care how many wounds you have left, it doesn't cause Instant Death and it doesn't cause wounds.

If EL characters can't come back because no special rule can save the unit, how can ATSKNF stop the unit from being sweeping advanced? There is already precedence for being "saved". As other people have pointed out the model was destroyed, that wasn't stopped, they simply returned to the battle.

Right. Sweeping Advance causes the model or unit to be removed from the game with no chance of recovery via any special rule, unless the special rule explicitly states otherwise. And They Shall No No Fear is an example; it specifically states that it saves the unit from dying to a Sweeping Advance.

RP & EL do not, because they don't say that they can save you from Sweeping Advance.

Now, for the argument folks try to make that they're not saving the unit, but they can come back anyway, I'm afraid that's not the nature of those rules. We don't get a new Victory Point (old-style KP) every time we kill a unit with EL. It's not a NEW unit. It's the SAME unit, coming back. When an Everliving model stands back up that DOES save the Victory Point, because it's saving the unit from being dead. Which is something Sweeping Advance does not allow.

 Gravmyr wrote:
If EL characters can't come back because no special rule can save the unit, how can ATSKNF stop the unit from being sweeping advanced? There is already precedence for being "saved". As other people have pointed out the model was destroyed, that wasn't stopped, they simply returned to the battle.

Because ATSKNF states that it can stop the SA specifically.

 Gravmyr wrote:
If EL characters can't come back because no special rule can save the unit, how can ATSKNF stop the unit from being sweeping advanced? There is already precedence for being "saved". As other people have pointed out the model was destroyed, that wasn't stopped, they simply returned to the battle.

Does ASTKNF have a specific exemption?
Does EL?

 Mannahnin wrote:
Right. Sweeping Advance causes the model or unit to be removed from the game with no chance of recovery via any special rule, unless the special rule explicitly states otherwise. And They Shall No No Fear is an example; it specifically states that it saves the unit from dying to a Sweeping Advance.

RP & EL do not, because they don't say that they can save you from Sweeping Advance.

Now, for the argument folks try to make that they're not saving the unit, but they can come back anyway, I'm afraid that's not the nature of those rules. We don't get a new Victory Point (old-style KP) every time we kill a unit with EL. It's not a NEW unit. It's the SAME unit, coming back. Which is something Sweeping Advance does not allow.

RAW this is incorrect. The unit is removed as casualties. EL does not stop that from occurring. Therefore SA condition is met and nothing in SA states that the EL token is not placed. Therefore the EL token can be rolled for at the end of the phase.

It's like you completely ignored his last paragraph.
Fragile - so you're of the opinion that EL creates new units?
Is this only when SAed or is it any time EL is passed?

They can write all the exceptions they want and it won't matter. SA says no special rules work that would save the unit, therefor ATSKNF cannot override SA as it is a special rule. The best you can get is a roll off. The special rule allows the unit to remain locked in combat. That would save them if it had permission to over rule that no special rules work.

It's like a drop pod disgorging it's contents and being open topped. The unit that disembarks has permission to charge after disembarking but not permission to charge after coming in from reserve. In this case a SM unit has permission to remain locked in combat but it does not have permission to use it's special rule.

 Gravmyr wrote:
They can write all the exceptions they want and it won't matter. SA says no special rules work that would save the unit, therefor ATSKNF cannot override SA as it is a special rule. The best you can get is a roll off. The special rule allows the unit to remain locked in combat. That would save them if it had permission to over rule that no special rules work.

Perhaps you should read the SA rule and use an argument that's actually correct.

 Gravmyr wrote:
They can write all the exceptions they want and it won't matter. SA says no special rules work that would save the unit, therefor ATSKNF cannot override SA as it is a special rule.

Man if only GW addressed what happens when there is a conflict between a basic rule (SA) and an advanced rule (ATSKNF)...

I was waiting for someone else to bring that up, which only goes to re-enforce that EL would still work against SA. Is EL advanced and SA basic?

Yes I know ATSKNF works against SA but using it as a comparison seemed the only way to point out a similar situation.

 Gravmyr wrote:
I was waiting for someone else to bring that up, which only goes to re-enforce that EL would still work against SA. Is EL advanced and SA basic?

Yes I know ATSKNF works against SA but using it as a comparison seemed the only way to point out a similar situation.

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

Between ATSKNF and EL one of them specifies otherwise.
Which one is it?

Both. You are given specific instructions that at all times when you remove a model as a casualty you can use EL.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Both. You are given specific instructions that at all times when you remove a model as a casualty you can use EL.

So EL specifies what happens when Sweeping Advanced?

Because the rule says "specifies" not "general allowance".

Did you remove the model from the board?

 Gravmyr wrote:
Did you remove the model from the board?

So your answer is "no" then - just the same general instructions for anything EL does. Nothing specific like SA requires.

My question remains? Was the model removed from the board?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We all know the answer is yes the model was removed as a casualty. It died. Was SA stopped? No it has occurred. Now what happens? EL kicks in and puts down a marker. Has SA occurred? Still yes. End of phase you make your roll for EL and the model stands up. Did SA occur and was the model destroyed? Yes. Did it still come back into play? Yes.

Now a save would prevent that from happening correct? Yes.
It would stop the process of SA and the removal of the model? Yes.
Does the model returning to play happen at the the SA stage? No.
Does SA affect the rules of the game past the determining Assault results stage? No.
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over."
Does SA change what rules can be applied after the Determining Assault Results stage? No.
When Does EL kick in? After end of combat.

 Gravmyr wrote:
My question remains? Was the model removed from the board?

The answer is yes.
That doesn't change the fact that there's no specific mention of what to do when SAed.

Edit: So was the unit rescued? Or is this a new unit?

Do I get a Victory Point in Purge the Alien each time the unit dies, or just once? If the latter is true, than EL must be saving the same unit.

The way I read EL the unit of say warriors is gone. The unit itself has been removed and the EL character remains. In the case of ICs they go back to being single units or in the case of members of the RC they go on to form a RC or join a new unit if possible. The unit of warriors that was swept is gone and you get a VP though.

 Gravmyr wrote:
The way I read EL the unit of say warriors is gone. The unit itself has been removed and the EL character remains. In the case of ICs they go back to being single units or in the case of members of the RC they go on to form a RC or join a new unit if possible. The unit of warriors that was swept is gone and you get a VP though.

So, using how you read it - Warriors with Lord are caught in SA. Lord comes back from EL. If using VPs, a VP is gained due to the Warrior unit being destroyed. Unless attached to a scoring unit, the Lord is no longer scoring. Is that correct?

Second question. How do you determine if the RC member forms a new Court, or joins a unit (either as a leader or the RC), as the decision is made before the battle.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Right. Sweeping Advance causes the model or unit to be removed from the game with no chance of recovery via any special rule, unless the special rule explicitly states otherwise. And They Shall No No Fear is an example; it specifically states that it saves the unit from dying to a Sweeping Advance.

RP & EL do not, because they don't say that they can save you from Sweeping Advance.

Now, for the argument folks try to make that they're not saving the unit, but they can come back anyway, I'm afraid that's not the nature of those rules. We don't get a new Victory Point (old-style KP) every time we kill a unit with EL. It's not a NEW unit. It's the SAME unit, coming back. When an Everliving model stands back up that DOES save the Victory Point, because it's saving the unit from being dead. Which is something Sweeping Advance does not allow.

The issue is that the Character/IC with the EL rule is removed as a casualty as being SA still makes its EL roll after as it was removed as a casualty. RP/EL in no way stops SA from happening. Also Once the unit that the Character/IC joined is wiped out they no longer count as part of that unit (Which is why you can not use the EL model to bring back the whole unit it was attached to.

Also a Unit with EL only counts as a VP/KP if it fails its EL check and is removed as a casualty. If it fails its check after a SA then it only counts as part of the unit that was SA (it does not stop that unit from being counted as a KP/VP) , if it gets back up then it will counts as its own kill point as it is a unit of itself.

Edit: Yes that is correct he would have to be scoring on his own as the unit that was scoring is gone he does not have that ability himself.

The EL rule itself allows a model with it to join a new unit when coming back into play if the unit it was attached to no longer exists. If when returned it is placed within coherency of a unit it can join you may have it join.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
The way I read EL the unit of say warriors is gone. The unit itself has been removed and the EL character remains. In the case of ICs they go back to being single units or in the case of members of the RC they go on to form a RC or join a new unit if possible. The unit of warriors that was swept is gone and you get a VP though.

So, using how you read it - Warriors with Lord are caught in SA. Lord comes back from EL. If using VPs, a VP is gained due to the Warrior unit being destroyed. Unless attached to a scoring unit, the Lord is no longer scoring. Is that correct?

Second question. How do you determine if the RC member forms a new Court, or joins a unit (either as a leader or the RC), as the decision is made before the battle.

The stand alone Lord/Cryptek is a Character not an IC so once its unit is gone it can be joined by an IC or act as a unit of its own. If it is part of the RC at the beginning then it will try to move back into coherency should the RC be swept. Of course if the RC is swept they all get EL rolls

BLADERIKER wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
The way I read EL the unit of say warriors is gone. The unit itself has been removed and the EL character remains. In the case of ICs they go back to being single units or in the case of members of the RC they go on to form a RC or join a new unit if possible. The unit of warriors that was swept is gone and you get a VP though.

So, using how you read it - Warriors with Lord are caught in SA. Lord comes back from EL. If using VPs, a VP is gained due to the Warrior unit being destroyed. Unless attached to a scoring unit, the Lord is no longer scoring. Is that correct?

Second question. How do you determine if the RC member forms a new Court, or joins a unit (either as a leader or the RC), as the decision is made before the battle.

The stand alone Lord/Cryptek is a Character not an IC so once its unit is gone it can be joined by an IC or act as a unit of its own. If it is part of the RC at the beginning then it will try to move back into coherency should the RC be swept. Of course if the RC is swept they all get EL rolls

I did not realize that Lords/Crypteks could join other units by coming back.

Of course you are still assuming that a model with EL can get back up from SA without specific permission.

You are assuming that they didn't fulfill the requirement of SA by being removed as a casualty. SA only requires the models to be removed as casualties. It does not require that no models in the unit can ever be brought back to "life" or into play just that they be removed.

except the model has been removed, as a casualty, with a special rule (sweeping advance), that specifically negates special rules like RP and EL, but not special rules that "otherwise state" such as atsknf.

kind of like how you dont get FnP on wounds with the ID rule, ID specifically negates what FnP is

I am saying it met removed as a casualty and it met the SA rule. Is there a Duration for Sweeping advance? Does it end once the requirements are met or is permanent and forever?

What special rules would SA affect if there are none but EL then it may be in there for EL. SA already stops RP as the moral check is failed and counters are removed then.

Does SA stop St Celestine(that is the SoB that comes back right?) from coming back or Justicar Thrawn?

And it does say if the unit is gone the EL model can join a unit if in the 3' range.

 Gravmyr wrote:
You are assuming that they didn't fulfill the requirement of SA by being removed as a casualty. SA only requires the models to be removed as casualties. It does not require that no models in the unit can ever be brought back to "life" or into play just that they be removed.

It says the unit is destroyed, not individuals models.
I'm sure you're just misremembering the difference.

The unit is RFP and cannot be rescued unless otherwise specified.
Does EL specify? You've admitted the answer is no.

Show me anything that says no model can be returned to play. Was the unit removed from play as casualties? Was is saved if it died and returned? No it fulfilled the rules as set forth by dying. It uses the wording saved. Which means kept from dying. It does not say that the models that die cannot be returned to play. The models that are returned through EL died. Therefor they were neither saved nor rescued.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Show me anything that says no model can be returned to play. Was the unit removed from play as casualties? Was is saved if it died and returned? No it fulfilled the rules as set forth by dying. It uses the wording saved. Which means kept from dying. It does not say that the models that die cannot be returned to play. The models that are returned through EL died. Therefor they were neither saved nor rescued.

So if you had only a single Lord (for arguments sake). It is attached t a unit of warriors. The unit gets swept, and the Lord passes his EL roll (assuming he can take it). Do I get a VP for killing the unit? If I kill the Lord in the following turn and he gets up, do I get another VP? What if on the following turn, I put him down for good?

We have always played that when an RC member gets split off he is for all purposes part of the new unit. If a cryptek is joined to a warrior squad said warrior squad is not destoryed until the cryptek is dead.

Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a
different unit from the following list: Necron Warriors, Necron Immortals, Lychguard or Deathmarks. Only one member of
the Royal Court can join each unit in this manner. Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court.

Our justification for playing it this way is the final sentence. Otherwise they remain part of the Royal Court. This sentence suggests when they are split off the are no longer part of the royal court. It is a simple interpretation but it is not game breaking and resolves all the questions you guys pose above, or that have been posed in the past.

That's the way I normally see it played as well. He's part of the unit, so his KP/VP is part of the unit's.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Do I get a Victory Point in Purge the Alien each time the unit dies, or just once? If the latter is true, than EL must be saving the same unit.

Except that the unit is not saved.
The unit is killed, he just gets back up later because that is what zombie-robots do when they die.

In that scenario there is nothing that breaks the SA-rule.
They flee, they get killed, SA is happy,
At the END of the phase, they get back up due to EL.

Kangodo wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Do I get a Victory Point in Purge the Alien each time the unit dies, or just once? If the latter is true, than EL must be saving the same unit.

Except that the unit is not saved.
The unit is killed, he just gets back up later because that is what zombie-robots do when they die.

In that scenario there is nothing that breaks the SA-rule.
They flee, they get killed, SA is happy,
At the END of the phase, they get back up due to EL.

You seem to have a mis-guided idea of what EL actually does. To illustrate this, lets take sweeping advance out of the picture for the time being.

When a model with EL gets killed and an EL token is placed, and that model subsequently gets back up, is this the same model (unit), or a new one?

The answer is: it is the same model (unit), as it is not worth a new kill point each time it goes down and it comes back with the same Wargear it had, etc.

So it doesn't matter if the model is removed as a casualty, if RP, EL, Yarrick's ability to stand back up, the old bionics special rule or even St Celestine's ability can allow it to come back, these are ALL special rules used to save the model (unit) by returning it to play, which is specifically disallowed by the Sweeping Advance rules.

It's why one of the very few ways to get rid of Celestine is to cast the Terrify psychic piwer on her and then catch her in a sweeping advance.

I echo Gravmyr and Kangodo's sentiments. In phase order, there is no rules conflict. The conflict has to be constructed by operating out of order or misuse (most likely accidental) of the word "save".

I'd just like to add for all to consider:

At no point in the EL or the RP entry in the codex is it referred to as a "save". In fact, there's an odd beat in the rules at that point which describe the roll required to come back by listing all six numeral possibilities and their subsequent result. The standard entry for saves: X+ is not used here. To call RP a save is not a description of the rules on the page. For instance, let's say saving throws were described as Protection Rolls instead. We wouldn't argue that a re-animated model was protected at a specific point in which it was not allowed to be, now would we? We would say that it was denied any protection rolls, removed from play, and then re-animated. The model was never "saved" from the event - the event happened! And following suit, the model re-animated per the rules set.

 yakface wrote:
[

So it doesn't matter if the model is removed as a casualty, if RP, EL, Yarrick's ability to stand back up, the old bionics special rule or even St Celestine's ability can allow it to come back, these are ALL special rules used to save the model (unit) by returning it to play, which is specifically disallowed by the Sweeping Advance rules.

This is an interpretation and very well could be RAI. But nothing 'saves' the unit from SA. SA takes effect and the entire unit is removed as casualties. SA was triggered and took effect. Nothing saved the unit from the lost combat and its effects. The placing of the token is a separate mechanic entirely.

Fragile wrote:

 yakface wrote:
[

So it doesn't matter if the model is removed as a casualty, if RP, EL, Yarrick's ability to stand back up, the old bionics special rule or even St Celestine's ability can allow it to come back, these are ALL special rules used to save the model (unit) by returning it to play, which is specifically disallowed by the Sweeping Advance rules.

This is an interpretation and very well could be RAI. But nothing 'saves' the unit from SA. SA takes effect and the entire unit is removed as casualties. SA was triggered and took effect. Nothing saved the unit from the lost combat and its effects. The placing of the token is a separate mechanic entirely.

If a Necron Lord on his own is killed by enemy shooting and then returns to play via EL, is this a new unit or the same one?

If it is the same unit, then no logical argument can be made to say that RP/EL isn't a special rule that is saving the unit from taking no further part of the game.

What you are claiming is factually impossible.

I believe the SA text is referring to a mechanic described in the game as "saving throws". See my entry above for my opinion on that matter. RP is not a saving throw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any VP sloppiness isn't of note ASFAIK, because VP are rewarded at the end of the game - not in the middle of play.

No, if it meant saving throws it would say saving throws, or "saves". GW's language when describing saves is quite consistent.

It's instead a comprehensive statement that no special rule or other means can save the unit. That the unit cannot take any further part in the battle, and no special rule can prevent this, unless said special rule specifically exempts the unit from Sweeping Advance.

Thokt wrote:
I believe the SA text is referring to a mechanic described in the game as "saving throws". See my entry above for my opinion on that matter. RP is not a saving throw.

Factually incorrect. ATSKNF isn't a save either.

Any VP sloppiness isn't of note ASFAIK, because VP are rewarded at the end of the game - not in the middle of play.

True. It's awarded for every unit completely destroyed.
Which, if EL creates a new unit, a unit was completely destroyed. Just like spawned gants.

Thokt wrote:
I believe the SA text is referring to a mechanic described in the game as "saving throws". See my entry above for my opinion on that matter. RP is not a saving throw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any VP sloppiness isn't of note ASFAIK, because VP are rewarded at the end of the game - not in the middle of play.

So if I kill a unit of Warriors on the top of Turn 1 and the attached Lord or Cryptek stands back up do I still get First Blood?

Hasn't this been argued about fifteen times before? And GW hasn't FAQ'd it? Wouldn't that mean it should be forehead slappingly easy?

If you're swept, you're gone. I can see the case where the lord dies in a challenge and then his unit is swept; he can then stand up. But if it's EL and it's swept? Peace out.

Thanks for filling me on St. Celestine. That's good to know! I also found the other way she bites it last weekend... Deep strike mishap! XD

 yakface wrote:
If it is the same unit, then no logical argument can be made to say that RP/EL isn't a special rule that is saving the unit from taking no further part of the game.
.

SA does not say this.

 Happyjew wrote:

Thokt wrote:
I believe the SA text is referring to a mechanic described in the game as "saving throws". See my entry above for my opinion on that matter. RP is not a saving throw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any VP sloppiness isn't of note ASFAIK, because VP are rewarded at the end of the game - not in the middle of play.

So if I kill a unit of Warriors on the top of Turn 1 and the attached Lord or Cryptek stands back up do I still get First Blood?

The way we play it no, you got to kill the cryptek or lord also.

tgf wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Thokt wrote:
I believe the SA text is referring to a mechanic described in the game as "saving throws". See my entry above for my opinion on that matter. RP is not a saving throw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any VP sloppiness isn't of note ASFAIK, because VP are rewarded at the end of the game - not in the middle of play.

So if I kill a unit of Warriors on the top of Turn 1 and the attached Lord or Cryptek stands back up do I still get First Blood?

The way we play it no, you got to kill the cryptek or lord also.

I'd agree with that. It's the same as killing a Grey Hunter unit but leaving the Wolf Guard that was attached to it at the beginning of the game alive. It's no longer Wolf Guard, but an upgrade to that unit. Gotta kill 'em all!

rigeld2 wrote:

Thokt wrote:
I believe the SA text is referring to a mechanic described in the game as "saving throws". See my entry above for my opinion on that matter. RP is not a saving throw.

Factually incorrect. ATSKNF isn't a save either.

Any VP sloppiness isn't of note ASFAIK, because VP are rewarded at the end of the game - not in the middle of play.

True. It's awarded for every unit completely destroyed.
Which, if EL creates a new unit, a unit was completely destroyed. Just like spawned gants.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What's the relationship between ATSKNF and RP (and thus EL)? ATSKNF applies to sweeping advances directly, by voiding the destruction of a sweep, but I don't understand how it relates to our conversation.

EL does not create a new unit - the wording in the 'dex is "returned to play". New spawns aren't returned to play, as they were never in play.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first blood question is really interesting to me though, the VP condition of First Blood requires only that a model be the first modeled removed from play as a casualty. So I'd have to assume that yes, you've met the requisite for FB, but if it was your Warlord, Slay the Warlord is calculated at the end game, so if the Warlord is still standing, that VP would not be awarded.

As I have stated nothing saved the unit it was destroyed. This is seperate from getting a VP for necrons as they get RP/EL before the model has no way to return to play. By playing with the thought that SA must remove the attached member of the RC all that a necron player has to do is include a Chronotek in his unit then keep his units close by. Using the Chornoteks rolls he bounces his Chronotek into a new unit when the old one dies thereby requiring his opponent to remove all of the necrons units from the game to get any of the VP's as it is part of the unit and the unit is not dead till all members have been removed. Is that what you think they wanted?

Secondly, no one has been able to show that SA affects any abilities that bring back a model from being a casualty. It is equally arguable that they were referring to SR's such as FNP that prevent the model from becoming a casualty which RP/EL does not do. It allows the model to return to play after having become a casualty.

Thirdly, the SA rule uses the word save which is to prevent the loss of life. Did the models die? Yes, which is what allows the RP/EL roll in the first place.

I think once the Crypteks unit is destroyed you lost that unit and the other team gets 1st blood. Under EL it says he can join a new unit if placed in cohesion after his unit is destroyed. If he joins immortals after leading warriors he is the sqaud leader of the warriors and immortals?

A ghost ark could add warriors to those immortals or more immortals?

Also the way you all are playing it you could kill everyone in the unit and as long as the Cryptek came back you could add warrior figures to the unit w/ a ghost ark?

I think he is leader for as long as he has someone to lead. I think you would have to kill off the royal to get the VP for them.

I really think this one w/ SA could go either way till if/when GW FAQs it.

 yakface wrote:
You seem to have a mis-guided idea of what EL actually does. To illustrate this, lets take sweeping advance out of the picture for the time being.
When a model with EL gets killed and an EL token is placed, and that model subsequently gets back up, is this the same model (unit), or a new one?
The answer is: it is the same model (unit), as it is not worth a new kill point each time it goes down and it comes back with the same Wargear it had, etc.

I know perfectly well what EL and RP does and I also know what it doesn't do.
It surely does not save the unit, because saving a model is when you prevent it from dying.
EL allows the model to die and resurrects in afterwards.

For the people who claim that you can get up after being swept, please answer the following. Scenario: Dark Eldar vs Necrons, Cryptek and Lord attached to a unit of Warriors with Immortals nearby. Kabalite Warriors in a horizontally deployed Raider have first turn. The Raider pivots 90 degrees, moves 6". The Kabaite Warriors disembark and manage a 12" charge getting into base contact with the Warriors. The Kabalite Warriors win the combat and the warriors are Swept. The Cryptek passes his EL roll and is placed within 2" of the Immortals. The Lord passes his El roll and stands back up but far away from the Immortals.

1. Does the Dark Eldar player get First Blood? Why?
2. Does the Kabalite Warriors gain a Pain Token? Why?
3. Does the Dark Eldar player receive a Victory Point at the end of the game? Why?
4. Are the Lord and Cryptek still scoring? Why?
5. Can a Ghost Ark use the Cryptek or Lord to add more Warriors? If the Cryptek can and is used, are the Warriors part of the Immortals unit?

Kangodo wrote:

I know perfectly well what EL and RP does and I also know what it doesn't do.
It surely does not save the unit, because saving a model is when you prevent it from dying.
EL allows the model to die and resurrects in afterwards.

There is no logical way you can claim that EL does not rescue the unit. Without EL, the unit would take no further part in the battle. With EL, the unit can take further part in the battle and therefore is absolutely breaking the sweeping advance rules.

So I will try to break it down in a completely logical way. I am also getting rid of all the extraneous garbage to the argument that is flowing around in this thread (as I hope more people will do so we can just focus on the actual issue at hand). Once my point is hashed out for a simple example, the logic can then be applied in every situation regarding the EL rule.


For my example, all I'm talking about is a lone Necron Overlord locked in combat against a single enemy unit. The enemy unit manages to win the round of combat, and successfully performs a sweeping advance, thereby removing the Overlord from play.

Can EL be used to revive the Overlord in this case?

So again, the Sweeping Advance rules say:

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

That rule has some colorful text in it, but it is also quite clear: No save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage...for [that unit] the battle is over.

While you can (apparently) try to argue that 'at this stage' means 'only at this particular moment', that argument fails because the rest of the sentence goes onto explain what is meant by this...the battle is over for that unit. Nothing can save them, period end of story.

So in my above example, if the Necron Overlord (who is a unit) gets back up again via EL, is the battle over for that unit? No it is not. And what has allowed the battle not to be over for that unit? Ever-Living, which is a special rule (something specifically disallowed).


Finally, as to the argument that you keep making that the unit is 'dead' at that particular time, thereby somehow circumventing the incredibly clear restrictions that Sweeping Advance lays out. Have a look at the Dark Eldar FAQ from GW. The DE gain Power From Pain tokens when they destroy a unit. However, what about when that enemy unit is able to return to play?

Q:When does a unit with Power from Pain gain a pain token for destroying a model/unit with the ability to return to play? (p25)
A: The model/unit must be completely destroyed so the unit will only gain a pain token once the model/unit is completely removed from play.

As you can see, a unit that has the ability to return to play does not count as being completely destroyed until it no longer has any opportunity to return to play, which is also why Celestine doesn't give up a VP everytime you knock her down either.

So to try to claim that a Necron Overlord unit which has been knocked down is somehow 'dead' or 'destroyed' and that alone allows it to get out of following the Sweeping Advance restrictions is patently false by the measuring stick of every other similar FAQ ruling that GW has made.

1) Yes the Eldar player would get 1st blood the warriors are gone. It say under ever living that if a unit is killed the Cryptek can join a new unit if he can be place with in coherency. If not he is placed with in 3' of where he was. I think he only leads the squad when he has a squad member left to lead. You would have to kill off the whole royal court to get the other VP in a kill count mission.

2) I know nothing about pain tokens. Never played vs Dark Eldar.

3) Vp for 1st blood at the end of the game = yes.

4) The Lord would be scoring as he is part of the new squad but he is only scoring as long as he has 1 Immortal with him. The Cryptek no. Seeing as how this same event could have happened with shooting and no assault ever happening. According to EL either one could have joined a new legal squad (like Deathmarks - would they be scoring then as they had once led warriors?). I do not think so. You could I guess argue that a lone Cryptek could be scoring if he lead warriors and returned by ever living as he is still solo and maybe the warrior squad leader still but I don't think so b/c if so a ghost ark would be able to add warriors and you wouldn't get that kill point and he wouldn't come back from SA.

5) see above.

Can the Cryptek be brought back by the ghost ark if he is the only one to die in the warrior squad?


Edit to Yakface:

I think that that unit is gone from play and only the special EL rule brings him back from being removed afterward. Codex trumps BRB. Where in Ever Living does it say not to return my Lord if he was killed and removed in a SA. But if the unit is gone and he reverts to his royal court state. It clearly states in EL that he can join another legal unit. His previous unit is gone if they were killed in SA so if he revives alone his unit is still gone he is now a royal court member.

 Mythra wrote:
1) Yes the Eldar player would get 1st blood the warriors are gone. It say under ever living that if a unit is killed the Cryptek can join a new unit if he can be place with in coherency. If not he is placed with in 3' of where he was. I think he only leads the squad when he has a squad member left to lead. You would have to kill off the whole royal court to get the other VP in a kill count mission.

2) I know nothing about pain tokens. Never played vs Dark Eldar.

3) Vp for 1st blood at the end of the game = yes.

4) The Lord would be scoring as he is part of the new squad but he is only scoring as long as he has 1 Immortal with him. The Cryptek no. Seeing as how this same event could have happened with shooting and no assault ever happening. According to EL either one could have joined a new legal squad like Deathmarks would they be scoring then as they had once led warriors? I do not think so. You could I guess argue that a lone Cryptek could be scoring if he lead warriors and returned by ever living as he is still solo and maybe the warrior squad leader still but I don't think so b/c if so a ghost ark would be able to add warriors.

5) see above.

Can the Cryptek be brought back by the ghost ark if he is the only one to die in the warrior squad?


Edit to Yakface:

I think think that unit is gone from play only the special EL rule brings him back. Codex trumps BRB. Where in Ever Living does it not to return my Lord if he was killed and removed in a SA. But The unit is gone and he reverts to royal court state is alone. It clearly states in EL that he can join another legal unit. His previous unit is gone they were killed in SA, if he revives alone his unit is still gone he is now a royal court member.

Why has this thread gotten stuck in all these tangents? People can't even bother to get past the core argument, so why try to answer ten other questions?

I've also gone back and edited my last post to change the Necron Lord to an Overlord, as my point seemed to have flown right by you because of it.

So what happens if the unit was killed due to shooting and the lone Cryptek revives w/ no warriors? Is he still scoring? Can the ghost Ark add warriors to him? What if joins Deathmarks/Royal Court/Immortals is he scoring and can a ghost ark add warriors or models to the Deathmarks/Royal Court/Immortals?

In a game I would let my opponent roll for EL if I SA him but would not roll myself if he had any problem with it as i think the rules aren't clear on it.

 Mythra wrote:
So what happens if the unit was killed due to shooting and the lone Cryptek revives w/ no warriors? Is he still scoring? Can the ghost Ark add warriors to him? What if joins Deathmarks?

In a game I would let my opponent roll for EL if I SA him but would not roll myself if he had any problem with it as i think the rules aren't clear on it.

I am not going to answer that question here because it is immaterial to the actual question this thread is based around, and is one of the many things that is helping to drive people further from the actual issue at hand.

But I also suggest you re-read the Everliving rules if you think there is permission for a non-IC EL model standing back up to join a different unit. That rule does not exist. But again, please do not respond to me about that point in this thread, as it isn't pertinent to the actual topic.

Then I am going to have to say I think they would not come back. There has to be a way to get rid of Justicar Thrawn, St Celestine, and EL Models. SA must be it. I think GW will FAQ this sooner or later tho. I would bet the models do come back.



Oh I see what your saying it can only join a unit if eligible and them not being an IC and only leading a warrior unit then they can't join any unit. Guess I'll start anew topic on that one lol.

There is a very logical way that EL rolls do not rescue the unit. Rescues is the same as save, if you were saved by someone else you were rescued. As I have posted saved it prevented from dying. Did the unit die?

I have asked this question multiple times now and the answer is still yes. If saved means prevent from dying and rescued uses the word saved then doing either would prevent the models from dying. They died, it's the only way you get to make EL rolls.

In what way are you using rescued if the unit has died?

 Gravmyr wrote:
There is a very logical way that EL rolls do not rescue the unit. Rescues is the same as save, if you were saved by someone else you were rescued. As I have posted saved it prevented from dying. Did the unit die?

I have asked this question multiple times now and the answer is still yes. If saved means prevent from dying and rescued uses the word saved then doing either would prevent the models from dying. They died, it's the only way you get to make EL rolls.

In what way are you using rescued if the unit has died?

If that is the case, the Power From Pain (and similar) FAQ rulings would be wrong.

If the unit is destroyed, then it should generate a PfP token, but it doesn't. Only if it has no chance of reviving is it actually considered destroyed.

Are you changing your mind then and saying that models that fell to CC before the sweep do not get to roll EL?

Ever-Living does not allow crypteks and lords to join different units. They are not "ELIGIBLE" key word from the rule. An independent character is eligible to change units during the game, a character is not. I don't see how anyone could interpret the rule that it grants characters (not independent characters) the ability to switch squads. The cyptek or lord that have been split off are forever part of the unit they have joined even if they are the only model left. The ghost ark question is an interesting one. From a strait RAW perspective if a cyptek was the sole remaining member of the warriors unit, it appears a ghost ark could add d3 warriors to his unit. Again this doesn't break the rules or the game.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Are you changing your mind then and saying that models that fell to CC before the sweep do not get to roll EL?

Have you found the part where EL specifies it works against SA?

Because without it you cannot save the unit and have it take further part in the game.. For them, the battle is NOT over.

Directly contradicting the SA rule.

It's dishonest to describe it as saving the unit. It's not a save, the unit is destroyed and doesn't return until the end of the phase.

What about WBB? That wasn't a save, happened even later in the game then RP/EL and in the 4th edition was specifically called out as a special rule that saves the unit.

It's not addressed as such currently, would require a FAQ to name it as such.

Thokt wrote:
It's dishonest to describe it as saving the unit. It's not a save, the unit is destroyed and doesn't return until the end of the phase.

So the unit is gone? Or not?
SA rules require them to be gone - "for them the battle is over".

rigeld2 wrote:

Thokt wrote:
It's dishonest to describe it as saving the unit. It's not a save, the unit is destroyed and doesn't return until the end of the phase.

So the unit is gone? Or not?
SA rules require them to be gone - "for them the battle is over".

Fluff text most likely, or easily could mean the melee combat they were just in.

 Happyjew wrote:
What about WBB? That wasn't a save, happened even later in the game then RP/EL and in the 4th edition was specifically called out as a special rule that saves the unit.

WBB was a completely different rule from RP. Also SA in 4E nd 5E didn't create casualties as in 6E.

If it's the same unit (which it is) and it returns to play, then for them the battle is not over. Directly contradicting the Sweeping Advance rule. You're only allowed to avoid this if your special rule (like ATSKNF) specifically says it can save you from Sweeping Advance.

And the effect of the tesseract labyrinth is "be trapped in the tesseract labyrinth forever". And yet you roll RP.

Does the tesseract labyrinth say "no special rule can save" the model?

Saving a model has nothing to do with RP. The model "dies" and so is never saved (or rescued).

If it continues, or returns, to participate in the battle any further, then you are violating the Sweeping Advance rules.

 Mannahnin wrote:
If it continues, or returns, to participate in the battle any further, then you are violating the Sweeping Advance rules.

This is 100% correct.

How people can not see this baffles me.

You guys are giving Necron players an even worse name... we're gonna need some PR help soon enough

As the others have said - Sweeping Advance rather explicitly states that they cannot participate in the battle any longer. Sure, they die and the RP roll truly isn't a "save" of any sort - the unit definitely dies but is allowed to return. Except, it isn't - RP rolls get discarded when they initially fall back and then they get swept.

The enemy is driving you before them, listening to the lamentations of your women. You get no other chance. The robots slowly turn around and start a mechanical retreat only to get their bodies decimated by the onrushing Space Wolves. The way I see it - even if the Overlord came back he would just get beat down in an instant during the advance.

Either way, as a Necron player I would never try this at a local table. It seems like such a gakky argument - if you have to delve this deep into wordplay to get around the whole "unit does not take part in a battle" it's either going to be a roll off or you can take the win and I'll play a fun match versus somebody with a sense of fun and humor.

 yakface wrote:
There is no logical way you can claim that EL does not rescue the unit. Without EL, the unit would take no further part in the battle. With EL, the unit can take further part in the battle and therefore is absolutely breaking the sweeping advance rules.

Wait, so I am illogical because I don't consider RP as saving someone?

So I will try to break it down in a completely logical way. I am also getting rid of all the extraneous garbage to the argument that is flowing around in this thread (as I hope more people will do so we can just focus on the actual issue at hand). Once my point is hashed out for a simple example, the logic can then be applied in every situation regarding the EL rule.

"Simple", "the logic", "completely logical way"...
Why don't we get rid of the extraneous garbage and just start calling people stupid for not agreeing with you?

We both perfectly know the rule.
You just think that RP/EL is considered as a save because the model is alive at the end of the phase.
I believe it is not a save because the model is a casualty, even if he comes back at the end of a phase.

This seems to have blown up pretty quick.

I'm almost hesitant to post in this thread, because everyone seems to be getting pretty nasty about it, but I also think the Necron players are getting a raw deal here.

It seems pretty clear to me that Ever-Living is intended to still allow you to get back up if your unit gets swept. I don't play with Necrons, and even though I play against some pretty smug Necron players down at my local haunt, I don't think I would ever try and say that getting swept denied them their Ever-Living rule. (No matter how much I might want to! )

Personally, I would REALLY like to see some clarification from GW on this in the next round of FAQ updates. I'll happily send in a request for it and if other people want to join in as well, it can't hurt.

Kangodo wrote:

 yakface wrote:
There is no logical way you can claim that EL does not rescue the unit. Without EL, the unit would take no further part in the battle. With EL, the unit can take further part in the battle and therefore is absolutely breaking the sweeping advance rules.

Wait, so I am illogical because I don't consider RP as saving someone?

So I will try to break it down in a completely logical way. I am also getting rid of all the extraneous garbage to the argument that is flowing around in this thread (as I hope more people will do so we can just focus on the actual issue at hand). Once my point is hashed out for a simple example, the logic can then be applied in every situation regarding the EL rule.

"Simple", "the logic", "completely logical way"...
Why don't we get rid of the extraneous garbage and just start calling people stupid for not agreeing with you?

We both perfectly know the rule.
You just think that RP/EL is considered as a save because the model is alive at the end of the phase.
I believe it is not a save because the model is a casualty, even if he comes back at the end of a phase.

What? I don't think EL/RP is a save. Of course it isn't.

That sentence has nothing to do with saves. It has everything to do with being saved (two completely different things).

A saving throw is certainly something that can save a unit from being destroyed, but not everything that can save a unit from being destroyed is a save.


So very simple question:

If a Necron Overlord unit is swept by the enemy, and then later revived via EL, is or isn't the battle finished for that Necron Overlord unit? I presume we can agree that in that particular situation the battle is not over for that Necron Overlord unit, correct?

And if we agree on that, then precisely what was it that saved that Necron Overlord unit from being destroyed by the sweeping advance and taking no further part in the battle? Again, I hope we can agree that it is the Ever-Living special rule, which has allowed the Necron Overlord unit to take further part in the battle, because if he didn't have that rule, he obviously could not have been saved by it, and would most certainly not be taking any further part in the battle, correct?

Therefore, Ever-Living, which is a special rule, is responsible for saving that Necron Overlord unit from being destroyed by the sweeping advance and taking no further part in the battle. And as the Sweeping Advance rules specifically deny the use of special rules from saving a unit from being destroyed by a sweeping advance, the use of Ever-Living in such a situation cannot be allowed.

"Of course it isn't."
If it would be so clear, there wouldn't be a discussion.

And I am not talking about saving throws.
In my vocabulary a save is something that PREVENTS someone from dying.
The Necron died, so he was not saved by anything.
He will get back up later, but nothing stopped him from dying and thus he wasn't saved.

"because if he didn't have that rule, he obviously could not have been saved by it"
Wrong. I do not consider EL as 'saving a model' because you allow the model to die.

But we'd better stop discussing this if all we do is write long posts that come down to "I think it counts as saving the unit", don't you agree?

Kangodo wrote:
"Of course it isn't."
If it would be so clear, there wouldn't be a discussion.

And I am not talking about saving throws.
In my vocabulary a save is something that PREVENTS someone from dying.
The Necron died, so he was not saved by anything.
He will get back up later, but nothing stopped him from dying and thus he wasn't saved.

"because if he didn't have that rule, he obviously could not have been saved by it"
Wrong. I do not consider EL as 'saving a model' because you allow the model to die.

But we'd better stop discussing this if all we do is write long posts that come down to "I think it counts as saving the unit", don't you agree?

Except that you keep ignoring the rest of the sentence in the sweeping advance rule where it explains what it means for a special rule to 'rescue' the unit: for [the unit] the battle is over.

As EL is a special rule that prevents the battle from being over for that unit. It cannot logically be utilized.

Can you give me the page where it explains the meaning of "the battle is over"?
Because that is no real ruling, could just as well mean that the close combat is over.

Nothing can save a unit from a SA.
EL does not save it, because it still dies.
That can only mean that logically it CAN be utilized.

Discussion over?
Just putting the word 'logical' in every sentence doesn't mean you are automatically right or even that it IS logically.

yakface wrote:

tgf wrote:

or does the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them tbe battle is over." clause kick in counting RP as other special rule?

Yes, both reanimation protocols & ever lying are special rules and since the sweeping advance rules clearly state that no special rules can be used to save the models.

Therefore, the proper way to play this IMO, is that if the Necron character actually gets swept, then it does not get to place an ever living token, as doing so would violate the sweeping advance rules.

However, if the character was simply killed during the combat and an EL token placed, then even if his former unit then gets swept, the model can attempt to get back up.

Mannahnin wrote:On the original question:
If the unit falls back, all RP counters are picked up. EL counters are not picked up.

 yakface wrote:

tgf wrote:

or does the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them tbe battle is over." clause kick in counting RP as other special rule?

Yes, both reanimation protocols & ever lying are special rules and since the sweeping advance rules clearly state that no special rules can be used to save the models.

Therefore, the proper way to play this IMO, is that if the Necron character actually gets swept, then it does not get to place an ever living token, as doing so would violate the sweeping advance rules.

However, if the character was simply killed during the combat and an EL token placed, then even if his former unit then gets swept, the model can attempt to get back up.

Agreed.

As I asked, are you both changing your minds so that no EL can happen if the unit was sweeping advanced?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason I ask is that if you allow EL rolls for models that previously died in CC then the unit was still "saved" by a special rule.

Except Yak IS right, here.

Unit A is destroyed
Unit A returns to play
EL saved the unit from remaining destroyed.

The unit was saved. Or are you arguing that a hospital, performing heart massage to save a person from clinical death, have NOT saved that person? As common language would disagree with you, rather heavily.

"Battle" is clearly NOT the close combat. To argue that is asinine,a s you must know that is not the meaning of "battle" in this context. Given they also use Battle to mean the whole game.

What about WBB, which operated the following TURN and was still considered a special rule that saves the unit? The rule for SA has not altered since 4th edition, apart from removing WBB as an EXAMPLE.

Desptie best efforts by some, this remains one of the clearest rules in 40k. Your rule doesnt mention SA? THen you are dead and gone, and cannot come back.

Kangodo wrote:
Can you give me the page where it explains the meaning of "the battle is over"?
Because that is no real ruling, could just as well mean that the close combat is over.

Nothing can save a unit from a SA.
EL does not save it, because it still dies.
That can only mean that logically it CAN be utilized.

Discussion over?
Just putting the word 'logical' in every sentence doesn't mean you are automatically right or even that it IS logically.

Page 118 describes "Fighting a Battle" so the term is defined in the BRB as the entire process of deciding army lists, objectives, sides. Warlord traits, and the actual game.

So if the battle is over, they're done until your next battle.

And stop focusing on the word "save". It has multiple meanings - the word "rescue" helps you understand that the bad thing ha already happened and you are no permitted to undo the bad thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except Yak IS right, here.
Unit A is destroyed
Unit A returns to play
EL saved the unit from remaining destroyed.

SA stops everything that would prevent unit A from being destroyed.
Unit A is destroyed.
Unit A comes back due to EL because EL is not a rescue, it doesn't prevent anything from happening.

Nothing in that sequence breaks the SA-rule.

The unit was saved. Or are you arguing that a hospital, performing heart massage to save a person from clinical death, have NOT saved that person? As common language would disagree with you, rather heavily.

Are you arguing that someone who died in a fire and got reanimated in the hospital was 'rescued'?

The person WAS saved. Again, very basic use of language there. They WERE dead, they are NOW alive, so they WERE saved [by the hospital]
The unit WAS destroyed, the unit is NOW alive, so they WERE saved [by their special rule]

"For them the battle is OVER"

Explain how their battle isnt over, and your permission to do so. Page and paragraph will suffice.

RESCUED, read the damn rulebook.
When something died, it is not rescued.

FOR THEM THE BATTLE IS OVER

Read the damn rulebook.

Is their battle [which we are 100% certain of the meaning of, despite your assertions to the contrary you have since ignored] over? If the answer is "No", page and paragraph to the SPECIFIC rule, specifically mentioning SA, that lets you ignore SA

Page and paragraph, now, or accept your error and move on,

EL says the battle is NOT over :')
And as it does not violate the "cannot rescue them"-rule, seeing as reanimation is not rescuing, they will just get back up in my opinion.

Kangodo wrote:
EL says the battle is NOT over :')

Without specific allowance this cannot be true. You've refused to cite specific allowance up until now - perhaps you'd like to this time?

And as it does not violate the "cannot rescue them"-rule, seeing as reanimation is not rescuing, they will just get back up in my opinion.

No, really, it is rescuing them. People are rescued from clinical death all the time.

"...the falling back unit is caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed....Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." P. 27

This rule tells us that if a unit is caught by a SA that unit is destroyed. It also tells us that no save or other special rule can rescue the unit (From being destroyed) at this stage.

EL has to rescue the unit from being destroyed as it makes the unit no longer destroyed (albeit at the end of the phase or whenever it takes place), as units that are destroyed can not take part in the game.

Does EL specify that it can save a unit from SA? if not then it is not "Unless otherwise specified"

This ^^ IMO...

Last laugh "... all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but lukas' last howls of laughter to keep them company for eternity".

So based on the above, if RP cannot be rolled because "for them the battle is over" then surely RP cannot be rolled after Last Laugh because the models are held in a temporal prison for eternity. Which of course is wrong...

copper.talos wrote:
Last laugh "... all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but lukas' last howls of laughter to keep them company for eternity".

So based on the above, if RP cannot be rolled because "for them the battle is over" then surely RP cannot be rolled after Last Laugh because the models are held in a temporal prison for eternity. Which of course is wrong...

It's almost like one is fluff and the other isn't.
Hint: battle is defined in the BRB.

I have noticed that no one has mentioned this FAQ question yet.

I believe this qualifies as "otherwise specified"
What say you?

Necron FAQ v1.4 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? (p29)
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.

40k-noob wrote:
I have noticed that no one has mentioned this FAQ question yet.

I believe this qualifies as "otherwise specified"
What say you?

BRB FAQ v1.4 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? (p29)
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.

I don't see anything about Sweeping Advance in there, do you?
How can it be "otherwise specified" if it doesn't specify anything?

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
I have noticed that no one has mentioned this FAQ question yet.

I believe this qualifies as "otherwise specified"
What say you?

BRB FAQ v1.4 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? (p29)
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.

I don't see anything about Sweeping Advance in there, do you?
How can it be "otherwise specified" if it doesn't specify anything?

Probably because the unit is "wiped out" in a Sweep Advance.
Do you disagree that a unit that has been swept, has been "wiped out?"

Edit: Oops, the FAQ is from the Necron FAQ not the BRB FAQ.

40k-noob wrote:
Probably because the unit is "wiped out" in a Sweep Advance.
Do you disagree that a unit that has been swept, has been "wiped out?"

I don't see that as specific to Sweeping Advance. It also happens when they get shot a lot, killed through normal swings in assault, have horrible rolls in Dangerous Terrain...

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Probably because the unit is "wiped out" in a Sweep Advance.
Do you disagree that a unit that has been swept, has been "wiped out?"

I don't see that as specific to Sweeping Advance. It also happens when they get shot a lot, killed through normal swings in assault, have horrible rolls in Dangerous Terrain...

Since it doesn't specify how the unit is "wiped out" it is therefor all encompassing of any means by which a unit can be "wiped out" i.e. Shooting attack, Close Combat attacks, sweep advances, explosions, dangerous terrain tests failures, Perils(if Necron could actually have Psykers) and so on.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Probably because the unit is "wiped out" in a Sweep Advance.
Do you disagree that a unit that has been swept, has been "wiped out?"

I don't see that as specific to Sweeping Advance. It also happens when they get shot a lot, killed through normal swings in assault, have horrible rolls in Dangerous Terrain...

Since it doesn't specify how the unit is "wiped out" it is therefor all encompassing of any means by which a unit can be "wiped out" i.e. Shooting attack, Close Combat attacks, sweep advances, explosions, dangerous terrain tests failures, Perils(if Necron could actually have Psykers) and so on.

So not specific then?
What does Sweeping Advance require - something to be otherwise specified or something to be lumped in with every other rule?

All encompassing is not "Unless otherwise specified"

It does not specify that it works against SA, therefore it does not.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Probably because the unit is "wiped out" in a Sweep Advance.
Do you disagree that a unit that has been swept, has been "wiped out?"

I don't see that as specific to Sweeping Advance. It also happens when they get shot a lot, killed through normal swings in assault, have horrible rolls in Dangerous Terrain...

Since it doesn't specify how the unit is "wiped out" it is therefor all encompassing of any means by which a unit can be "wiped out" i.e. Shooting attack, Close Combat attacks, sweep advances, explosions, dangerous terrain tests failures, Perils(if Necron could actually have Psykers) and so on.

So not specific then?
What does Sweeping Advance require - something to be otherwise specified or something to be lumped in with every other rule?

Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Probably because the unit is "wiped out" in a Sweep Advance.
Do you disagree that a unit that has been swept, has been "wiped out?"

I don't see that as specific to Sweeping Advance. It also happens when they get shot a lot, killed through normal swings in assault, have horrible rolls in Dangerous Terrain...

Since it doesn't specify how the unit is "wiped out" it is therefor all encompassing of any means by which a unit can be "wiped out" i.e. Shooting attack, Close Combat attacks, sweep advances, explosions, dangerous terrain tests failures, Perils(if Necron could actually have Psykers) and so on.

So not specific then?
What does Sweeping Advance require - something to be otherwise specified or something to be lumped in with every other rule?

Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

I see you failed to note the "unless otherwise specified" requirement.
ATSKNF meets that requirement. Does Ever Living?

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

@rigeld2
Battle is never defined, it is used just as like any other word, in fluff and in rules likewise. So the "for them the battle is over" is not any more valid than the "eternity" of Last Laugh just because it contains the word "battle". The actual rule is that the unit is removed as a casualty and can't be saved or rescued. Which rule is not contradicted by RP to need any special permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

copper.talos wrote:
@rigeld2
Battle is never defined, it is used just as like any other word, in fluff and in rules likewise. So the "for them the battle is over" is not any more valid than the "eternity" of Last Laugh just because it contains the word "battle". The actual rule is that the unit is removed as a casualty and can't be saved or rescued. Which rule is not contradicted by RP to need any special permission.

Battle isn't defined?
Could you tell me what the heading is on page 118? Is that a rules or a fluff section?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

Can't come back - BRB
Can too! - Codex. If it ended here, codex would win.
Need specific exemption. - BRB
<silence> - Codex.

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

It can in this instance, as the rule in the BRB states there needs to be something that is specifically specified otherwise.

EL/RP does not specifically state otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between ATSKNF and RP/EL where one specifies it works against SA and the other does not?
as Rig said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Can't come back - BRB
Can too! - Codex. If it ended here, codex would win.
Need specific exemption. - BRB
<silence> - Codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

It can in this instance, as the rule in the BRB states there needs to be something that is specifically specified otherwise.

EL/RP does not specifically state otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between ATSKNF and RP/EL where one specifies it works against SA and the other does not?
as Rig said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Can't come back - BRB
Can too! - Codex. If it ended here, codex would win.
Need specific exemption. - BRB
<silence> - Codex.

Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

If a the word "battle" is defined ruleswise then can you point me to what are the conditions for winning a "Battle". Because all I read is Eternal War missions.

True, the word battle is used in a heading, but also is "a" and "of". Are these words also defined ruleswise? For a word to be defined ruleswise it must have a specific meaning like "Leadership". Battle does not have such a specific meaning and can be used in fluff without a problem. On the other hand Eternal War is ruleswise well defined, and I am thinking you are confusing these two...

copper.talos wrote:
If a the word "battle" is defined ruleswise then can you point me to what are the conditions for winning a "Battle". Because all I read is Eternal War missions.

This section presents the Eternal War missions: scenarios where the armies are of roughly the same size and the situation gives neither side a particular advantage.

So we know that victory conditions are listed in the Eternal War scenarios.

Battle does not have such a specific meaning.

It absolutely does. A Battle is the entirety of the setup for a game, plus the game, and any mission special rules.

On the other hand Eternal War is ruleswise well defined, and I am thinking you are confusing these two...

Not at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

hmm I dont recall chalk being that tasty, but then it has been many, many years since I late ate it.

40k-noob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

hmm I dont recall chalk being that tasty, but then it has been many, many years since I late ate it.

Normally I would agree, however, my girlfriend's surname is "Chalk"

copper.talos wrote:
Last laugh "... all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but lukas' last howls of laughter to keep them company for eternity".

So based on the above, if RP cannot be rolled because "for them the battle is over" then surely RP cannot be rolled after Last Laugh because the models are held in a temporal prison for eternity. Which of course is wrong...

Hint: Battle is defined in the BRB, Do you have a rules argument to make?

Kangodo - I must have missed where EL states "for them the battle is NOT over, despite what Sweeping Advance says" - can you pleae point out page and para? Or anything to back up your position that is based on actual rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:


Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

With due respect, that sounds like the main argument against Tau Crisis Suits not being able to take 2 individual weapons of the same type because it was not specifically specified that they could - until GW specifically addressed that issue.

I grant that I don't have allot of 40K experience, but I have not seen anything in any rule book that says that exceptions have to be explicit ( even if it would be nice if they always were ) - such as ATSKNF vs. EL. ATSKNF gives a very explicit exception, while EL appeares to give a general exception ( I'm not saying at this point whether or not it does ).


Assume for the moment, that EL did give exception. How does it break the game ( if it does )? Given the EL FAQ just above, all it means is that the model with EL has a chance to come back at the end of the round ( not that it will ), is that in its self, a game breaker, or does it just mean that you have to work a little harder? Most models with EL, can not capture objectives by themselves, so if SA wipes out the rest of the squad, just how useful will that EL model be ( if it actually comes back )? IIRC, if it does come back, it normally comes back with a single wound, making them even easier to put down the next time - so again, just how useful would that model be? It can't normally capture points and usually comes back with a single wound - I grant that it might be annoying but doesn't sound like it would be a very effective unit. OTOH, it would conform to fluff, to have a couple of units returning just when you thought they were no longer a bother.

Now not to make things more complicated, but what about Trazyn the Infinite and his Surrogate Host ability? This also appears to give another possible general exception to SA, as on a role of 1 he is removed as normal, on a 2+ he randomly replaces another model ( specific types ), and awards kill points only when he does not return.

The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.

That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

hmm I dont recall chalk being that tasty, but then it has been many, many years since I late ate it.

Normally I would agree, however, my girlfriend's surname is "Chalk"

Lucky man

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.
That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

No no no no =)
It specifically tells you that the rule must have specific wording before it can RESCUE the unit.
EL really shouldn't be seen as a rescue, because they all die.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.
That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

No no no no =)
It specifically tells you that the rule must have specific wording before it can RESCUE the unit.
EL really shouldn't be seen as a rescue, because they all die.

And for them the battle is over...?

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.
That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

No no no no =)
It specifically tells you that the rule must have specific wording before it can RESCUE the unit.
EL really shouldn't be seen as a rescue, because they all die.

No no no

SA tells you that for them, the battle [which is the whole game] is over.

Page and paragraph for your specific exception to this rule, as required both by SA and the tenets of this forum. Failure to provide said cite will mean you have effectively conceded that you have no rules based argument, and are strictly making a "HIWPI" argument without stating so clearly, again in violation of the forum tenets.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.

That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

All it says is " unless otherwise specified " - no where ( that I can find in the BRB ), does SA require explicit exception, while the Necron FAQ, does show that EL models have a general exception, to events, that would otherwise wipe out units that have even RP.

Now how about those questions I asked? If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

It wouldn't, but that's an irrelevant question really.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
SA tells you that for them, the battle [which is the whole game] is over.

Citation?

Page and paragraph for your specific exception to this rule, as required both by SA and the tenets of this forum. Failure to provide said cite will mean you have effectively conceded that you have no rules based argument, and are strictly making a "HIWPI" argument without stating so clearly, again in violation of the forum tenets.

It's cited in the SA-rulings.
Those rulings prevent a rescue.
EL is NOT a rescue. Allowing someone to die is NOT a rescue.

If a possessed robot dies and later repairs itself with magic it doesn't mean that he went back in time and stopped himself from dying.
He just died and came back alive.
SA-ruling 'demands' that the unit dies and EL allows them to die.

rigeld2 wrote:
Battle isn't defined?
Could you tell me what the heading is on page 118? Is that a rules or a fluff section?

It's both, fluff and rules. Just like the "for them the battle is over" is fluff.
Or do you throw down a gauntlet before 'Fighting A Battle'?

The entire section, which took way too long to read for this stupid discussion, does not define what a battle is in the 40k game.

Kangodo wrote:
EL is NOT a rescue. Allowing someone to die is NOT a rescue.

It really is - people are rescued from clinical death all the time.

rigeld2 wrote:
Battle isn't defined?
Could you tell me what the heading is on page 118? Is that a rules or a fluff section?

It's both, fluff and rules. Just like the "for them the battle is over" is fluff.
Or do you throw down a gauntlet before 'Fighting A Battle'?

The entire section, which took way too long to read for this stupid discussion, does not define what a battle is in the 40k game.

So the shooting phase isn't defined?
Nor the movement phase?
How about Special Rules - are those defined?

Citation for the part I clearly denoted was what "battle" means?

"Battle" as a definition has been given many, many times. This is a clear directive, which you are choosing to ignore.

Where in SA does it specify it works against Sweeping Advance. You are aware of what specify means, yes? Read ATSKNF, note how it specificaly states it operates against Sweeping Advance. Does EL? No? Then I gues you remain wrong on this.

SA demands that "for them, the battle is over"

So, I sak again: Page and Paragraph showing the precise, specific statement that allows them to be rescued.

I know you think that rescuing something is not possible if they are dead and are brought back to life, however actual real language disagrees with you in the strongest way.

To sumamrise: You have failed to provide any rules in violation of this forums rules. You have failed to provide a rebuttal of anyones arguments that isnt simply an assertion, based on hoping we wont notice your deliberate misrepresentation of what the text in the rulebook states, and finally you have insulted people by saying this is a "stupid" discussion.

Well, quite franklly it IS a stupid discussion: SA tells you the game is over, unless your rule states it works against SA. EL does not state it works against SA, so their game is over.

You have, through your failure to present an argument, effectively conceded that you have none.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

It wouldn't, but that's an irrelevant question really.

Not really.

If EL, is a general exception ( rather than a explicit exception ) to SA, and doesn't break the game, why not drop the arguing and just play it that way? If it's not breaking the game, and not giving any particular side any great advantage or great disadvantage, it becomes just something that should be expected and dealt with like ATSKNF ( and even units with ATSKNF can be forced off the board and destroyed ).

rigeld2 wrote:
It really is - people are rescued from clinical death all the time.

"Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism."
"Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain life."
Clinical death is not real death, those people never legally died.

And are you really using real-life medical terms to explain the necromancy of zombie-robots?

So the shooting phase isn't defined?
Nor the movement phase?
How about Special Rules - are those defined?

Those things actually ARE defined.
The BRB tells you exactly what the shooting phase is and how it works, unlike 'Fighting a Battle' which is nothing more than a title.

Except it cannot be a general exceptoin to SA, because no. such. thing. exists. The SA rules themselves state you must EXPLICITLY state you are an exception, otherwise the rules apply

 Chopper Greg wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

It wouldn't, but that's an irrelevant question really.

Not really.

If EL, is a general exception ( rather than a explicit exception ) to SA, and doesn't break the game, why not drop the arguing and just play it that way? If it's not breaking the game, and not giving any particular side any great advantage or great disadvantage, it becomes just something that should be expected and dealt with like ATSKNF ( and even units with ATSKNF can be forced off the board and destroyed ).

Because I don't care how it's played at the table - aside from the fact that it neuters assault armies even more?
I just don't. I discuss rules on a forum. I play differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So the shooting phase isn't defined?
Nor the movement phase?
How about Special Rules - are those defined?

Those things actually ARE defined.
The BRB tells you exactly what the shooting phase is and how it works, unlike 'Fighting a Battle' which is nothing more than a title.

Citation required. The sections for those rules are listed out exactly as the Fighting a Battle section.

When a word is defined ruleswise is used as a reference. That is the point behind in defining words as such. So you have numerous references to "shooting phase", "morale test", Leadership etc for rule resolvement throughout the book and in codices. Are there any similar references for "battle"? None whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except Yak IS right, here.

Unit A is destroyed
Unit A returns to play
EL saved the unit from remaining destroyed.

The unit was saved. Or are you arguing that a hospital, performing heart massage to save a person from clinical death, have NOT saved that person? As common language would disagree with you, rather heavily.

"Battle" is clearly NOT the close combat. To argue that is asinine,a s you must know that is not the meaning of "battle" in this context. Given they also use Battle to mean the whole game.

What about WBB, which operated the following TURN and was still considered a special rule that saves the unit? The rule for SA has not altered since 4th edition, apart from removing WBB as an EXAMPLE.

Desptie best efforts by some, this remains one of the clearest rules in 40k. Your rule doesnt mention SA? THen you are dead and gone, and cannot come back.

Except he,Yak, said that EL can save the unit if they fell in close combat but his unit was then Swept. While I started out in this vein I have since changed my outlook to say if that is true then they get EL even if they fall to Sweeping Advance. The reason being it would "save" the unit if that were the case. Since the unit is being removed as a casualty then their use of saved and rescued must reference "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost" as those are the options of being a casualty and also saved. As such I posted my beliefs as to why they would get EL as they were not prevented "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost " as they were removed as a casualty.

Your comparison above is also flawed. Now if the doctor called time of death and then managed to bring them back that would be a more accurate comparison. What you describe above is more akin to FNP given by a Dok to the ork units. As by the current definition if you are under his care you are not actually dead till he calls time of death, your heart simply stopped which is very common.

Copper - except in "fighting a battle"

Is that the sum total of your argument? What about the fact that you are rescuing the unit?

The unit was destroyed
You have reversed that position
You have broken the SA rule.

Done. Page and paragraph showing how you have SAVED the unit. Any further attempts to claim "but its later!" will be met with reminders of WBB, which happened an entire TURN LATER, yet was STILL a special rule which SAVED the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Citation for the part I clearly denoted was what "battle" means?

"Battle" as a definition has been given many, many times. This is a clear directive, which you are choosing to ignore.

Really... page please, where it is "defined"

Where in SA does it specify it works against Sweeping Advance. You are aware of what specify means, yes? Read ATSKNF, note how it specificaly states it operates against Sweeping Advance. Does EL? No? Then I gues you remain wrong on this.

It doesnt need to, because there is no conflict. The unit is removed as casualties, models are taken off the board and dumped into whatever you carry them in. SA is satisfied. EL triggers on a different time.

SA demands that "for them, the battle is over"

Like vehicles dont give First blood, or Purge the Alien only counts vechicles?

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Citation for the part I clearly denoted was what "battle" means?

"Battle" as a definition has been given many, many times. This is a clear directive, which you are choosing to ignore.

Really... page please, where it is "defined"

Where in SA does it specify it works against Sweeping Advance. You are aware of what specify means, yes? Read ATSKNF, note how it specificaly states it operates against Sweeping Advance. Does EL? No? Then I gues you remain wrong on this.

It doesnt need to, because there is no conflict. The unit is removed as casualties, models are taken off the board and dumped into whatever you carry them in. SA is satisfied. EL triggers on a different time.

SA demands that "for them, the battle is over"

Like vehicles dont give First blood, or Purge the Alien only counts vechicles?

Well, if you really want to get technical, the only way to get First Blood is if you Sweep an enemy unit or run an enemy unit off the board.

Fragile - erm, have you been following the thread? "Fighting a Battle" tells you what the "battle" comprises. Read it, love it

How is there no conflict?

You are directed that, for them, the battle is over. You know that unit you bring back to life, that can now continue the battle? That one? That breaks the SA rule, as their battle is NOT over. Again, there really IS a conflict. Again: WBB occurred a whole TURN later aand was STILL a special rule that saves the unit.

Where is your allowance now? Page and graph, or concede.

 Gravmyr wrote:

Except he,Yak, said that EL can save the unit if they fell in close combat but his unit was then Swept. While I started out in this vein I have since changed my outlook to say if that is true then they get EL even if they fall to Sweeping Advance. The reason being it would "save" the unit if that were the case. Since the unit is being removed as a casualty then their use of saved and rescued must reference "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost" as those are the options of being a casualty and also saved. As such I posted my beliefs as to why they would get EL as they were not prevented "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost " as they were removed as a casualty.

This sounds allot like what happens if a Monolith takes a hit that results in it's particle whip is destroyed. A nice friendly Spyder that was next to it, uses it's fabricator claw array it repairs the particle whip, allowing the weapon to be used in the next shooting phase.

The part of the SA rule that requires that the unit/model be destroyed is satisfied - EL essentially repairs the destroyed EL model to a reduced capacity ( 1 Wound ).

Is this what you are saying?

It makes sense from a real world perspective, such that a tank might get hit and turned into battlefield debris, but as long as the main hull is essentially intact, it can be removed from the battlefield, repaired, and eventually placed back in service - it might not be cost effective, but it could be done, and probably easier to understand than the doctor analogy.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:

Except he,Yak, said that EL can save the unit if they fell in close combat but his unit was then Swept. While I started out in this vein I have since changed my outlook to say if that is true then they get EL even if they fall to Sweeping Advance. The reason being it would "save" the unit if that were the case. Since the unit is being removed as a casualty then their use of saved and rescued must reference "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost" as those are the options of being a casualty and also saved. As such I posted my beliefs as to why they would get EL as they were not prevented "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost " as they were removed as a casualty.

This sounds allot like what happens if a Monolith takes a hit that results in it's particle whip is destroyed. A nice friendly Spyder that was next to it, uses it's fabricator claw array it repairs the particle whip, allowing the weapon to be used in the next shooting phase.

The part of the SA rule that requires that the unit/model be destroyed is satisfied - EL essentially repairs the destroyed EL model to a reduced capacity ( 1 Wound ).

Is this what you are saying?

It makes sense from a real world perspective, such that a tank might get hit and turned into battlefield debris, but as long as the main hull is essentially intact, it can be removed from the battlefield, repaired, and eventually placed back in service - it might not be cost effective, but it could be done, and probably easier to understand than the doctor analogy.

Do the rules for Weapon Destroyed say that unless otherwise specified nothing can save the weapon? Does the fabricator array specifically state it can repair a destroyed weapon?

 yakface wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 yakface wrote:
[

So it doesn't matter if the model is removed as a casualty, if RP, EL, Yarrick's ability to stand back up, the old bionics special rule or even St Celestine's ability can allow it to come back, these are ALL special rules used to save the model (unit) by returning it to play, which is specifically disallowed by the Sweeping Advance rules.

This is an interpretation and very well could be RAI. But nothing 'saves' the unit from SA. SA takes effect and the entire unit is removed as casualties. SA was triggered and took effect. Nothing saved the unit from the lost combat and its effects. The placing of the token is a separate mechanic entirely.

If a Necron Lord on his own is killed by enemy shooting and then returns to play via EL, is this a new unit or the same one?

If it is the same unit, then no logical argument can be made to say that RP/EL isn't a special rule that is saving the unit from taking no further part of the game.

What you are claiming is factually impossible.

The Necron Lord/Overlord is the same unit that was slain, the unit gets a special roll to return to play after it has been removed as a casualty. So based on your own argument EL is a rule that is found in a Codex that will superseded the rule found in the BRB. This rule will allow a unit that is removed from play as a casualty to get a change to come back into play after said event occurred. Or has the fact that Rules in the Codex's superseded or over rule the ones in the BRB been over turned, and now the Special rules in the BRB over rules all Codex Special Rules??

I have read all the responses in this thread and in all honesty right now I see a few points of contention. I have done some research. Here is my findings.

Battle seems to be pretty clearly defined. Starting on page 118 it discusses how to prepare for a battle and running all the way through the victory conditions and missions. It is probably one of the most heavily detailed definitions in the book.

Furthermore as is relevant to this thread look at the royal court rules.

"Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off ..."

The vast majority of players would agree this timed event happens before deployment ^

Everyone seems to agree EL brings the same model back to life it doesn't create a new unit.

SA says very specifically "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over."

If EL brings the same model back the battle is obviously not over for them and this would be covered under the "no save or other special rule" clause.

Many of you have pointed to ATSKNF, but this rule specifically overrides SA. EL does not have a specific override.

SA trumps EL and this does not break either rule as written.

The only unclear area at this point in my mind is does an EL character token that is part of a unit (not an IC). Have to be picked up of the remainder of their unit is swept since the battle is over for them, if they died prior to the sweep).

 Happyjew wrote:

 Chopper Greg wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:

Except he,Yak, said that EL can save the unit if they fell in close combat but his unit was then Swept. While I started out in this vein I have since changed my outlook to say if that is true then they get EL even if they fall to Sweeping Advance. The reason being it would "save" the unit if that were the case. Since the unit is being removed as a casualty then their use of saved and rescued must reference "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost" as those are the options of being a casualty and also saved. As such I posted my beliefs as to why they would get EL as they were not prevented "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost " as they were removed as a casualty.

This sounds allot like what happens if a Monolith takes a hit that results in it's particle whip is destroyed. A nice friendly Spyder that was next to it, uses it's fabricator claw array it repairs the particle whip, allowing the weapon to be used in the next shooting phase.

The part of the SA rule that requires that the unit/model be destroyed is satisfied - EL essentially repairs the destroyed EL model to a reduced capacity ( 1 Wound ).

Is this what you are saying?

It makes sense from a real world perspective, such that a tank might get hit and turned into battlefield debris, but as long as the main hull is essentially intact, it can be removed from the battlefield, repaired, and eventually placed back in service - it might not be cost effective, but it could be done, and probably easier to understand than the doctor analogy.

Do the rules for Weapon Destroyed say that unless otherwise specified nothing can save the weapon? Does the fabricator array specifically state it can repair a destroyed weapon?

You get a change to save against a possible pinning hit if you have a cover or a invul save, but to the best of my knowledge there is not way to save against a Wep destroyed. As for the Fab Claw it does let you repair an Immobilized/weapon Destroyed or a hull point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgf wrote:
I have read all the responses in this thread and in all honesty right now I see a few points of contention. I have done some research. Here is my findings.

Battle seems to be pretty clearly defined. Starting on page 118 it discusses how to prepare for a battle and running all the way through the victory conditions and missions. It is probably one of the most heavily detailed definitions in the book.

Furthermore as is relevant to this thread look at the royal court rules.

"Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off ..."

The vast majority of players would agree this timed event happens before deployment ^

Everyone seems to agree EL brings the same model back to life it doesn't create a new unit.

SA says very specifically "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over."

If EL brings the same model back the battle is obviously not over for them and this would be covered under the "no save or other special rule" clause.

Many of you have pointed to ATSKNF, but this rule specifically overrides SA. EL does not have a specific override.

SA trumps EL and this does not break either rule as written.

The only unclear area at this point in my mind is does an EL character token that is part of a unit (not an IC). Have to be picked up of the remainder of their unit is swept since the battle is over for them, if they died prior to the sweep).

If you have an lord attached to a unit of Immortals and said unit with said lord loses combat and is caught in a SA, the unit of immortals if completely wiped out and cannot benefit from RP at all as stated in the rules of RP. However, the rules for EL only state that the model with it will get a change to get back up. Also given the fact that the Model with EL is not counted as part of the unit for the purposes of RP, and is counted separately so that you cannot use the one Lord/Overlord/Cryptek that was attached to the unit for RP if the unit was wiped out. Lastly in a VP/KP game I would argue as a Necron player, that the model with EL becomes a separate VP/KP if and only if it cannot get into a new unit.

One more thing after the unit make the SA what does it do? does it make a consolidation move? or is it still counted as being in combat as the unit that was SA was wiped out. If the unit that made the SA is no longer locked in combat at the end of the phase then how can the unit with the EL rule be in combat with it? Meaning that the model with the EL rule is not locked in combat with the unit and can move away from that attacker unit if is passes its roll.

You have ignored the no special rules clause, you have not explained how EL gets around this. Further more your assertion that a lord or cryptek can join another squad is completely false. There is no convention for this to happen. Any royal court member that is split is forever a part of the squad they are sent to lead, if everyone else in their squad dies and they live no VP or KP has been yielded until that character is dead.

tgf wrote:
You have ignored the no special rules clause, you have not explained how EL gets around this. Further more your assertion that a lord or cryptek can join another squad is completely false. There is no convention for this to happen. Any royal court member that is split is forever a part of the squad they are sent to lead, if everyone else in their squad dies and they live no VP or KP has been yielded until that character is dead.

Please explain how the unit or model is being saved after it is dead and has been removed from the table and play.

As for the EL rule. (Necron Codex, Page 29.) "If a 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 placed 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 is it eligible to join, it automatically joins one of those units (your Choice.)."

The other part of the EL rule is (Necron Codex, Page 29.) "If a Model with this special rule is removed as a Casualty, 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."

Based on what you are saying, if a Lord or Cryptek joins a scoring unit, then even if the rest of the unit is dead the lord counts as scoring because it was attached to a scoring unit. I don't think that flies.

Based on what I have seen so far. the argument is that.

1. No saves can be taken against SA that might rescue the units from Death.
2. EL saves the unit/model from death.
*. You cannot make EL rolls after a successful SA

Is this or is this not the logic?

No, that's exactly correct - if a Lord was joined to a scoring unit he's always a scoring model - even if all the Warriors around die.

Yes, crypteks and lords remain scoring if the rest of the unit is wiped out. They are a part of that unit, not ICs. They do not cease being a part of that unit if they are the last one standing any more than your sgt ceases to be part of his unit if he is the only one left.

As for how I play it, everything is gone if the unit gets swept, including counters lost in the combat prior to getting swept.

I would like to point it out as this

Necron warriors+lord gets charges, lord dies in challenge. Warriors get decimated to 2 men from 12 so they have to roll snake eyes on leadership test. they fail. Now because the lord died in the challenge, but that was before the combat is over. So an EL token is placed. For all intents and purposes, the model is no longer there.

The Warriors have not been able to pass it and get SA'd and the warriors are gone. At the end of the phase the EL is rolled for. Because the Lord is already dead, how can be be SA'd? He is no longer on the table for all intents and purposes.

I see it from both sides, and to be honest, I have been playing it where the lord goes with the unit in a SA, but thats coz my lord doesnt normally die, its the warriors that cause me to lose. I might be poping into a GW shop tomorrow so I can always ask then.

I would like to point out that the FAQ may even muddy the waters a bit more.

Q: If a unit with one or more reanimation protocols or ever-living
counters fails its Morale check and falls back off the table, what
happens to the counters and the models they represent? (p29)
A: They are lost and no Reanimation Protocols/Ever-living rolls
are made.

If a unit falls back off the table you do not get RP or EL rolls. While this is not SA it does indicate intent of GW to create situations where EL does not get a roll. SA like falling back off the table removes models that were not killed outright. SA also prohibits special rules from allowing the model to continue the battle.

BLADERIKER wrote:

tgf wrote:

Based on what I have seen so far. the argument is that.

1. No saves can be taken against SA that might rescue the units from Death.
2. EL saves the unit/model from death.
*. You cannot make EL rolls after a successful SA

Is this or is this not the logic?

Correct, further more you seem to be ignoring the fact that Crypteks and Lords are not IC's they are not able to join other squads nor leave the squad they have been assigned to, and under the Royal Court rules They are no longer a member of the royal court once split off, meaning they are very much part of the squad they have joined and they are scoring if joining a scoring unit.

Now let me criticize this argument as this is what was said to be the argument.

1. No saves can be taken against SA that might rescue the units from Death.
2. EL saves the unit/model from death.
*. You cannot make EL rolls after a successful SA

First EL is not a save in way shape or form, it cannot save a model from being destroyed or removed from play as a casualty. So premiss 2 is false as EL does not save the model from death.

So this argument may be valid but, it is not true and thus cannot be used.

So how do we alter this argument to make it true? Please feel free to give it a try.

Here is the argument as it stands for my stance.

1. SA which no saves can be taken against removes all those affected models as casualties at the end of the assault step.
2. As EL does not save the unit from being destroyed and is triggered by the model being destroyed and removed from play as a casualty.
*. EL rolls can be taken against causalities caused by SA.

As for falling back off the table if the unit breaks and the EL model has not already been removed as a casualty then yes there are no RP/EL rolls taken as they left the battle from breaking. Note that the models that run off the board are not removed as casualties and cannot re-enter the battle without a special rule. Given this example, if the EL model was already removed from play as a casualty then it can be argued that the model can make its EL roll as it is allowed to make its roll even if the unit it was attached to fled. Note that this is a specific case where the unit has to fall back off the table.

If you would stop ignoring the battle is over for them part of SA your entire argument falls apart. Tell me how the battle is over if EL brings them back? Its not a save its a special rule, that is covered by SA. The errors you are falling into are, EL is a save (its not), EL is not a special rule (it is).

As to your last point you have completely failed English. Read the FAQ. EL counters are removed. It could not be clearer.

Consolidate over the token and 3 inches out and solve the problem. If it can't be placed its stays dead.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragile - erm, have you been following the thread? "Fighting a Battle" tells you what the "battle" comprises. Read it, love it

Again.. page and graph.. Anything less is just your contextual interpretation.

You are directed that, for them, the battle is over. You know that unit you bring back to life, that can now continue the battle? That one? That breaks the SA rule, as their battle is NOT over. Again, there really IS a conflict. Again: WBB occurred a whole TURN later aand was STILL a special rule that saves the unit.

And that was what edition?? Exactly... rules can and do change, whether deliberately or by accident.

Where is your allowance now? Page and graph, or concede.

I love when people say this... You must have conceded already since I still see no page and graph where "battle" is defined.

Blade - yet the UNIT *must* stay destroyed otherwise the unit has NOT completed the SA rule, which requires that the UNITS battle is over

Battle is *defined* as the ENTIRE GAME

Explain how you are breaking this 100% clear directive, and your permission to do so. Page and paragraph


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile - sigh. Page 118. Have you read it? It defines "Fighting a Battle". Now I assume you can parse that simple sentence? Yes? Good, then you have agreed Battle, and what it means in 40k, is defined.

If not, then explain why not.

The SA rule has not altered excpet to remove the WBB *example*, for 3 editions. Can you address this point now, rather than hand waving away? At all?

SA rule has not changed
WBB occurred a full turn later (at minimum) than EL / RP rolls
WBB was defined as a special rule that saves the unit from destruction, and so was not allowed

Explain this, without hand waving, and state how this doesnt demolish your timing argument.

.This pops up every couple months, is demolished as a rules argument, and it rears its head again. Despite this being an alarmingly clear rule.

Battle is *defined* as the ENTIRE GAME

Can you quote the rule that defines it? Because my book only has that text once, just as a title.
And titles mean nothing when we are talking about rules.

Otherwise we just have to assume it's some sort of fluff.

Kangodo wrote:

Battle is *defined* as the ENTIRE GAME

Can you quote the rule that defines it? Because my book only has that text once, just as a title.
And titles mean nothing when we are talking about rules.

Otherwise we just have to assume it's some sort of fluff.

So the Shooting Phase isn't defined?
And neither is the Movement Phase.
Or Special Rules - gosh.

rigeld2 wrote:
So the Shooting Phase isn't defined?
And neither is the Movement Phase.
Or Special Rules - gosh.

"The Shooting Phase" is the title of a part of the rules that explains what the shooting phase is.
A quick scan of the pages gives at least 5 times the reference "shooting phase", telling us exactly what the shooting phase is.
But the part "Fighting a Battle" doesn't even reference once to a battle.

And that has been said multiple times already, why are you ignoring that?

Page 118 "points value of the two battling armies"
Page 118 "rest of the terrain for the battle"
Page 120 "Next, the players must set up terrain for the battle."
Page 120 "As you set up the scenery for your battle"

Should I keep looking, or is that enough to prove your assertion "doesn't even reference once to a battle" incorrect?

So what I am seeing is that SA has precedence over EL and that the SA cannot be broken in anyway unless a rule lets it.

With that Said, I would like point this out. (Pg 7, BRB, Bottom Right.) "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 takes precedence."

Just so there is no confusion about this

(Pg 27, BRB, Top Left.) "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 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 stage; for them the battle is over."

This is found under the title "Necron Special Rules" Sub-Heading "Ever-living" (Pg 29, Necron Codex, Top right.) "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocol 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."

Furthermore, (Pg 29, Necron Codex, Left side.) "If a Model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty , there is a chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the current phase. Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. 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. - Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a Casualty, remove all your counters. Note that Characters do not count as part of the unit for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols."

As it stands, the BRB clearly states that in the case of a rule issue like this one, the Codex Special Rule takes Precedence over all the rules in the BRB. EL IS "Otherwise Specified" in the Necron Codex to let a model that is removed as a Casualty return to play after being removed.

As for the argument for what a Lord/Cryptek counts as when attached to another unit, that is not the issue here. The Issue is, can EL rolls be made after a SA is made. Well Codex trumps BRB so, EL gets its rolls. With the one exception already stated in the FAQ regarding falling back off the table.

EL doesn't trump SA because it does not conflict with SA, you simply do not understand the rules as written.

SA says no special rules. EL is a special rule. The end, its that simple. That is not a conflict. A conflict would be like ATSKNF, and in that case Pg 7 does apply.

ATSKNF says ignores SA, SA says ignores special rules. Specific vs. General or in the case of some books Codex vs. BRB. There is no conflict between SA and EL, SA forbids EL. EL does not specifically conflict with SA. The end.

BLADERIKER wrote:
A lot of good (but irrelevant) research

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

Is EL a special rule?

EL doesn't say no to death. You do die, and then you come back.

Thokt wrote:
EL doesn't say no to death. You do die, and then you come back.

Which of course does not matter if you are caught in a SA, as for that unit the battle is over.

If " You do die, and then you come back" is the battle over?

Thokt wrote:
EL doesn't say no to death. You do die, and then you come back.

Meaning your battle isnt over, despite the rule stating otherwise. WHich rule are you now breaking?

Kangodo - seriously, "not once". Is that like "the majority of people play"....?

Think its about time this thread gets locked, its been highly repetitive for a while now and nothing new can be added to change anyone's mind until GW FAQ it to make it abundantly clear whether EL can be used after SW takes place or not.

Personally i am in the camp that says they can't get back up, i have always played that way and will continue to play that way until they say otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Which of course does not matter if you are caught in a SA, as for that unit the battle is over.

If " You do die, and then you come back" is the battle over?

And since EL says they can come back there is a conflict between a rule in the BRB and a special rule in a codex and given that the last paragraph Pg 7 of the BRB explicitly states "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".

So if you do not allow EL models to have their EL role, you will be in violation of the Codex rule for EL and the BRB rule that states advanced codex rules always override BRB rules.

Chopper Greg wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Which of course does not matter if you are caught in a SA, as for that unit the battle is over.

If " You do die, and then you come back" is the battle over?

And since EL says they can come back there is a conflict between a rule in the BRB and a special rule in a codex and given that the last paragraph Pg 7 of the BRB explicitly states "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".

So if you do not allow EL models to have their EL role, you will be in violation of the Codex rule for EL and the BRB rule that states advanced codex rules always override BRB rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

BLADERIKER wrote:
A lot of good (but irrelevant) research

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

Is EL a special rule?

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

False.
EL does not say no.
EL says: "Sure, they will die." and then sneakily brings them back to life after they died.

EL is a special rule and not allowed by the specificity of SA. To deny it is simply dishonest at this point.

Kangodo wrote:

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

False.
EL does not say no.
EL says: "Sure, they will die." and then sneakily brings them back to life after they died.

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? Yes.
Can EL (as a special rule) work in this case? No....

Beast wrote:
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? Yes.
Can EL (as a special rule) work in this case? No....

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

SA says the battle, for swept units, is over for them, and that no special rule will "rescue' them. Seems pretty obvious both in the literal wording and the context what that means... Specifically, no, EL won't allow your models to continue in any way as a part of the battle...

Kangodo wrote:

Beast wrote:
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? Yes.
Can EL (as a special rule) work in this case? No....

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

Yet again you change the rules to suit your argument

What part of "for them, the battle is over" are you complying with above? None of it? Then your argument is debunked....again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet again you change the rules to suit your argument

What part of "for them, the battle is over" are you complying with above? None of it? Then your argument is debunked....again.

Rescuing and 'the battle' are not defined in the BRB.
If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at GW for throwing so much fluffy language in their rules that it actually breaks them.

Kangodo wrote:
'the battle' are not defined in the BRB.

I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet again you change the rules to suit your argument

What part of "for them, the battle is over" are you complying with above? None of it? Then your argument is debunked....again.

Rescuing and 'the battle' are not defined in the BRB.
If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at GW for throwing so much fluffy language in their rules that it actually breaks them.

That is a strict lie, or else you have failed to read the thread and notice the proof otherwise that Rigeld has repeatedly provided.

Which is it?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Oh really? I must have missed the part where the BRB explains what 'the battle' is.
Would that be on the same page where they explain that rescuing, saving and ressurection is the same thing? Because that might explain why nobody has ever read it.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Oh really? I must have missed the part where the BRB explains what 'the battle' is.
Would that be on the same page where they explain that rescuing, saving and ressurection is the same thing? Because that might explain why nobody has ever read it.

So, you havent bothered reading the thread? I suggest you go back and do us the courtesy of reading others arguments.

When youve found it, please apologise to Rigeld for the discourtesy youhave repeatedly shown them.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Oh really? I must have missed the part where the BRB explains what 'the battle' is.
Would that be on the same page where they explain that rescuing, saving and ressurection is the same thing? Because that might explain why nobody has ever read it.

No one has read it?

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Battle is *defined* as the ENTIRE GAME

Can you quote the rule that defines it? Because my book only has that text once, just as a title.
And titles mean nothing when we are talking about rules.

Otherwise we just have to assume it's some sort of fluff.

So the Shooting Phase isn't defined?
And neither is the Movement Phase.
Or Special Rules - gosh.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the Shooting Phase isn't defined?
And neither is the Movement Phase.
Or Special Rules - gosh.

"The Shooting Phase" is the title of a part of the rules that explains what the shooting phase is.
A quick scan of the pages gives at least 5 times the reference "shooting phase", telling us exactly what the shooting phase is.
But the part "Fighting a Battle" doesn't even reference once to a battle.

And that has been said multiple times already, why are you ignoring that?

rigeld2 wrote:Page 118 "points value of the two battling armies"
Page 118 "rest of the terrain for the battle"
Page 120 "Next, the players must set up terrain for the battle."
Page 120 "As you set up the scenery for your battle"

Should I keep looking, or is that enough to prove your assertion "doesn't even reference once to a battle" incorrect?

Sure seems like you read my proof and declined to respond.

I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

Kangodo wrote:
I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

But do you disagree with my citations as proving you incorrect that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle" ?

Could you cite where a Shooting Phase is defined for me? Page and Paragraph.

Page 12, right under the title.
"During the Shooting Phase, units armed with.."
"The shooting process can be summarized.."
Below "Nominate Unit to Shoot"
"The Turn" (pg 9) even tells us when a Shooting Phase starts and ends.

Where do we have that information about 'the Battle'?

The preface equates the Battle to the Eternal War Mission (This section presents the Eternal War missions) which is comprised of "The Armies, The Mission, The Battlefield, Deployment, First Turn, Game Length, Victory Conditions and Mission Special Rules"

The quotes I've provided previously support that, despite your assertion that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle".

Kangodo wrote:

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

Wrong.

SA specifically allows for special rules, to exempt models and units.

BRB Pg. 27: "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

EL specifically allows you a chance to bring, a specific model, back from the dead - not save it, but bring it back from the dead, after the SA is over.

This is a direct conflict with SA that says the model is removed from play for the rest of the game.

On Pg 7 the BRB specifically directs, that in the case of a conflict in the rules, you to defer to the codex.


If you really get down to it, the rule for SA, is in its self, a conflict and thus sets the stage for conflict with other rules - as it first specifically allows for a special rule and then turning around and saying no special rule is allowed.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

Wrong.

SA specifically allows for special rules, to exempt models and units.

BRB Pg. 27: "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

EL specifically allows you a chance to bring, a specific model, back from the dead - not save it, but bring it back from the dead, after the SA is over.

This is a direct conflict with SA that says the model is removed from play for the rest of the game.

On Pg 7 the BRB specifically directs, that in the case of a conflict in the rules, you to defer to the codex.


If you really get down to it, the rule for SA, is in its self, a conflict and thus sets the stage for conflict with other rules - as it first specifically allows for a special rule and then turning around and saying no special rule is allowed.

So you can show where in the EL rule it specifically calls out SA by name? Ya know, like ATSKNF.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

But do you disagree with my citations as proving you incorrect that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle" ?

There is a difference between 'referencing' the battle and 'defining' what it is.

Simply because something is referred to, it doesn't follow that it tells you what it is - whether 'the battle' is the entire game or a specific skirmish within the game, it is still left undefined, and could be read either way.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

But do you disagree with my citations as proving you incorrect that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle" ?

There is a difference between 'referencing' the battle and 'defining' what it is.

Simply because something is referred to, it doesn't follow that it tells you what it is - whether 'the battle' is the entire game or a specific skirmish within the game, it is still left undefined, and could be read either way.

Did you not read where I quoted his words? He said the section didn't even reference once to a battle. I proved that wrong, unarguably.
I've since then gone on to show that Battle is equated with the Eternal War Mission, which is absolutely defined.

 Happyjew wrote:


So you can show where in the EL rule it specifically calls out SA by name? Ya know, like ATSKNF.

Can you show where GW has always specified rules?

Just a single example of where they didn't, would be the recent 8 page discussion of whether or not XV-8 Crisis Suits could take 2 identical weapons or not, simply because GW did not specifically say they could, until the recent FAQ change ( which for some reason doesn't show as an actual reversion ).


This is probably exactly why they say on BRB Pg 7, to defer to the codex, in case of conflict.


If GW does not want players to defer to the Necron codex over the SA rules, they will specifically FAQ against EL, but until then, Pg 7 of the BRB is still valid.

 Chopper Greg wrote:
Can you show where GW has always specified rules?

Just a single example of where they didn't, would be the recent 8 page discussion of whether or not XV-8 Crisis Suits could take 2 identical weapons or not, simply because GW did not specifically say they could, until the recent FAQ change ( which for some reason doesn't show as an actual reversion ).

There was no conflict, so there was no need to specify. If there was a rule that said unless otherwise specified a model can only have 1 of any given weapon, then there would have needed to be specification/

Chopper - there isnt a conflict. EL doesnt say "even if you are sweeping advanced" or "you may always play in the battle"

Kangodo - still waiting for you to apologise to Rigeld.

rigeld2 wrote:

Did you not read where I quoted his words? He said the section didn't even reference once to a battle. I proved that wrong, unarguably.
I've since then gone on to show that Battle is equated with the Eternal War Mission, which is absolutely defined.

These are not references to battle as a ruleswise defined war. These just use the word battle as in any text, fluff or nor. A word that is defined for use in game must have a specific definition and referencing to that word to avoid repeating the same rules over and over. Ie there is a difference in Leadership as a ruleswise defined word and the word leadership which can be used in text without referring to that rule. Battle is never defined as such.

I'm locking this as repetitive and circular. Both sides have more than adequately explained their positions.