Can the Storm Lord fire off his lightning strikes when he is not on the table? This came up in a game of Carnage today, and 3 of the 4 players felt it was total BS, but we didn't feel like arguing it (obviously the Necron player was the 1 that thought it was perfectly within the rules). I always thought that a special ability that was a form of attack could not be used if the model that has that special ability was not on the table. I mean the Lord of Storms ability is obnoxious enough, and is very poorly written (it combines two very different rules into a single blob of text), but then, the same could be said for a lot of the Necron codex. If the ability is completely independent of Imhotek's presence on the battlefield, why then would he get to use a reroll to from an accompanying cryptek for lightning strikes and to determine if nightfighting is in effect? Kind of contradicts itself if that's the case.

On the subject of Necron rule shenanigans, our resident Necron player completely disagrees with the Sweeping Advance kill equals no Everliving roll. This has led to a number of arguments, and now, I just don't use a melee army against him anymore. In our same game above, he broke from combat voluntarily in the hopes that he would be able to A) make his Everliving roll to stand back up, and B) move the model closer to the objective and NOT be tied up in combat. Again, the rest of the players in the Carnage match called him on that being illegal, and he claimed that he did not have to put the model back into combat because the unit was wiped out, the winning unit consolidated, and so combat was officially over. He could then charge another unit during his turn. Any thoughts on this one (and yes, I know SA should stop the EL roll to begin with, but I'm done arguing that one for now)?

I seriously cannot wait until GW redoes the Necron codex. There are just too many wonky special rules that seem to break every basic rule there is and I'm just tired of arguing with the guy.

I'm not about to comment on part one, but there are numerous problems in part 2.

"he broke from combat voluntarily ... " That's not an option. You cannot choose to fail the morale check.

"he claimed he did not have to put the model back into combat ..." Possibly illegal. Per the Necron Codex "If the model was locked in Close Combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in." If he withdrew and was swept, then he would be able to do what he did. But then he runs afoul of the wording of Sweeping Advance "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this point; for them the battle is over."

Sweeping Advance kill do allow Everliving rolls.
As in the big book , the unit is “removed as casualties”.
Everliving roll is used for a model removed as casualty.

ian_destiny wrote:
Sweeping Advance kill do allow Everliving rolls.
As in the big book , the unit is “removed as casualties”.
Everliving roll is used for a model removed as casualty.

Wrong. Was the unit saved? Is the battle not over for that unit? Then you have broken the rule for sweeping advance, and done it with a special rule that does NOT specify it operates against sweeping advance.

SA denies ever living. No argument is possible when the rules are read entirely, and without misunderstanding the word "specifically"

nosferatu1001 wrote:

ian_destiny wrote:
Sweeping Advance kill do allow Everliving rolls.
As in the big book , the unit is “removed as casualties”.
Everliving roll is used for a model removed as casualty.

Wrong. Was the unit saved? Is the battle not over for that unit? Then you have broken the rule for sweeping advance, and done it with a special rule that does NOT specify it operates against sweeping advance.

SA denies ever living. No argument is possible when the rules are read entirely, and without misunderstanding the word "specifically"

Codex 》Rule book.

Everliving is the "otherwise specified" thing in this case. So, Everliving roll of 5+ will save the Necron character.

ian_destiny wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

ian_destiny wrote:
Sweeping Advance kill do allow Everliving rolls.
As in the big book , the unit is “removed as casualties”.
Everliving roll is used for a model removed as casualty.

Wrong. Was the unit saved? Is the battle not over for that unit? Then you have broken the rule for sweeping advance, and done it with a special rule that does NOT specify it operates against sweeping advance.

SA denies ever living. No argument is possible when the rules are read entirely, and without misunderstanding the word "specifically"

Codex 》Rule book.

Everliving is the "otherwise specified" thing in this case. So, Everliving roll of 5+ will save the Necron character.

The Codex rule never mentions Sweeping Advance, so how does it specify? There's nothing in the rule to suggest it overrides the sweeping restriction.

 grendel083 wrote:

ian_destiny wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

ian_destiny wrote:
Sweeping Advance kill do allow Everliving rolls.
As in the big book , the unit is “removed as casualties”.
Everliving roll is used for a model removed as casualty.

Wrong. Was the unit saved? Is the battle not over for that unit? Then you have broken the rule for sweeping advance, and done it with a special rule that does NOT specify it operates against sweeping advance.

SA denies ever living. No argument is possible when the rules are read entirely, and without misunderstanding the word "specifically"

Codex 》Rule book.

Everliving is the "otherwise specified" thing in this case. So, Everliving roll of 5+ will save the Necron character.

The Codex rule never mentions Sweeping Advance, so how does it specify? There's nothing in the rule to suggest it overrides the sweeping restriction.

Sweeping Advance , on page 27 of the BRB : "The destoryed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
And on page 29 of the necron book, Ever-living : " If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty,....."

ya the FAQ made things weird for imotekh, but that said.

His rule modifies the night fighting rules, it's not his rule. Just like if you take an elite choice as a troop choice, they can use mysterious objectives as troops, even if the HQ is not on the table yet.

Or how Ghazghull modifies the WAAAAGH rules, it's not his rule, so G's WAAAGH can be used if Ghaz is in reserves, or dead.

The LOTS ability works if imotekh is on the table, or in reserves, and if he's dead, as long as nightfighting is in play. but if he's dead the cryptek can no longer allow a reroll.

When you read the reserves rules, they don't restrict anything models are capable of doing, which is why SR's that modify reserve rolls also work while that unit is in reserve.

Nice selective quoting!

In general, upon death, necrons get reanimation protocols.
A unit caught by sweeping advance is destroyed.

As stated in the sweeping advance rule, unless specifically referencing this situation no special rule can be used to prevent this. That means a cheat death rule isn't enough, it has to be specifically a cheat death including sweeping advance special rule.
Since reanimation protocols does not meet that criteria, the necrons do not get to use that rule against sweeping advance.

ian_destiny wrote:
Sweeping Advance , on page 27 of the BRB : "The destoryed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

And what does the very next sentence say?

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

Yeah, Ever-living does not protect against SA. It's a special rule that did not specify that it can ignore SA.

Everliving allows you to roll for IWBB even when the unit has been killed in Sweeping Advance.

Everliving is NOT an upgrade to the IWBB rule. It's one of the most common misundestandings. Everliving is a completely seperate rule. IWBB specifically states that it does not save you from Sweeping Advance / Fall Back and explicitely states that all counters are lost.

This is NOT the case for Everliving, quite in the contrary, as it specifically refers to the model with the Everliving rule being part of a unit. The rule for Everliving specifically states that the unit MUST come back to life.

And on top of that, both IWBB and Everliving are indeed more specific than the BRB rule and therefore take precedence. In the case of IWBB, however, the rule explicitely states that the models or rather their markers are immediately lost upon being swept.

On the battlefield, this never comes up anyway. When sweeping a unit with an Everliving model, you get to reposition your unit. Simply reposition them in a way so that the Everliving model cannot be placed 3'' around its marker. If it cannot be placed, it cannot resurrect and counts as being a casualty.

 Sigvatr wrote:
And on top of that, both IWBB and Everliving are indeed more specific than the BRB rule and therefore take precedence. In the case of IWBB, however, the rule explicitely states that the models or rather their markers are immediately lost upon being swept.

Does EL specifically state that it can save the unit from Sweeping Advance?
No? Then why are you breaking that rule?

On the battlefield, this never comes up anyway. When sweeping a unit with an Everliving model, you get to reposition your unit. Simply reposition them in a way so that the Everliving model cannot be placed 3'' around its marker. If it cannot be placed, it cannot resurrect and counts as being a casualty.

Yeah, because rolling a 1 to consolidate never happens.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And on top of that, both IWBB and Everliving are indeed more specific than the BRB rule and therefore take precedence. In the case of IWBB, however, the rule explicitely states that the models or rather their markers are immediately lost upon being swept.

Does EL specifically state that it can save the unit from Sweeping Advance?
No? Then why are you breaking that rule?

Feel free to ask Ward about why he decided to implement a rule that foregoes Sweeping Advance. I can only do so much as work with the rules, not comment on the reason for its implemention.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And on top of that, both IWBB and Everliving are indeed more specific than the BRB rule and therefore take precedence. In the case of IWBB, however, the rule explicitely states that the models or rather their markers are immediately lost upon being swept.

Does EL specifically state that it can save the unit from Sweeping Advance?
No? Then why are you breaking that rule?

Feel free to ask Ward about why he decided to implement a rule that foregoes Sweeping Advance. I can only do so much as work with the rules, not comment on the reason for its implemention.

You've misunderstood.
Sweeping advances requires a Special Rule that saves a unit to specifically say that it can.
EL does not specifically say that it can.
Why are you ignoring what Sweeping Advance says?

Sweeping Advance states that the model is removed as a casualty. EL specifically refers to this event and is triggered by it. So is IWBB, but it specifically states that Sweeping Advance removes all counters.

/e: Just to clarify for others: this still doesn't allow the rest of the unit to roll for IWBB, despite the character with Everliving having been part of the unit. The unit is dead, the character lives.

Sweeping advance then states that nothing can save it unless specified otherwise. You're missing that clause.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sweeping advance then states that nothing can save it unless specified otherwise. You're missing that clause.

I did not miss it, in the contrary. Nothing can save the model indeed, it is counted as a casualty. Everliving ticks in after that. Furthermore, Everliving is more specific than the BRB in that matter, as detailed above.

Sweeping Advance -> Counted as casualty -> Everliving

Which means that you saved the model, thus ignoring the wording for Sweeping Advance without a specific rule stating you may do so.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sweeping advance then states that nothing can save it unless specified otherwise. You're missing that clause.

I did not miss it, in the contrary. Nothing can save the model indeed, it is counted as a casualty. Everliving ticks in after that. Furthermore, Everliving is more specific than the BRB in that matter, as detailed above.

Sweeping Advance -> Counted as casualty -> Everliving

So for them, the battle isn't over?

Ignoring rules = cheating. You're ignoring a rule stating, plainly, that the unit takes no further part in the game UNLESS the rule SPECIFICALLY STATES it works against sweeping advance

You have no such rule, therefore, as stated and proven every damn time, el cannot operate against sweeping advance.

Oh, and as for your fallacious timing argument - EL happens end of phase. WBB happened the turn after. At the earliest. The wording for SA has not altered, yet WBB was the canonical example of a rule that did not operate, meaning your timing argument is voided. Do not repeat it

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Oh, and as for your fallacious timing argument - EL happens end of phase. WBB happened the turn after. At the earliest. The wording for SA has not altered, yet WBB was the canonical example of a rule that did not operate, meaning your timing argument is voided. Do not repeat it

This was the case pre-6th. 6th now explicitely states that models killed by Sweeping Advance are removed as casualties. Even basic rules, or rather their wording, change with the course of time, so keep up with it. Using outdated rules knowledge in YMDC is meh-meh.

Denying EL after a Sweeping Advance is plain cheating your fellow Necron opponent, nosferatu.

/e: Quoted directly from the BRB:

"Unless otherwise specified, no save [...]"

Necron codex, p 29.

 Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Oh, and as for your fallacious timing argument - EL happens end of phase. WBB happened the turn after. At the earliest. The wording for SA has not altered, yet WBB was the canonical example of a rule that did not operate, meaning your timing argument is voided. Do not repeat it

This was the case pre-6th. 6th now explicitely states that models killed by Sweeping Advance are removed as casualties. Even basic rules, or rather their wording, change with the course of time, so keep up with it. Using outdated rules knowledge in YMDC is meh-meh.

Denying EL after a Sweeping Advance is plain cheating your fellow Necron opponent, nosferatu.

"or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over."

That is the rule. Are you following that rule?

Or are you using "other special rule": Ever-living?

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Oh, and as for your fallacious timing argument - EL happens end of phase. WBB happened the turn after. At the earliest. The wording for SA has not altered, yet WBB was the canonical example of a rule that did not operate, meaning your timing argument is voided. Do not repeat it

This was the case pre-6th. 6th now explicitely states that models killed by Sweeping Advance are removed as casualties. Even basic rules, or rather their wording, change with the course of time, so keep up with it. Using outdated rules knowledge in YMDC is meh-meh.

Denying EL after a Sweeping Advance is plain cheating your fellow Necron opponent, nosferatu.

"or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over."

That is the rule. Are you following that rule?

Or are you using "other special rule": Ever-living?

Yes, because:

"Unless otherwise specified, no save [...]"

No you're not, because the rules for Everliving never once specifies that you can take it when you're not allowed a save, does it?

 Sigvatr wrote:

Yes, because:

"Unless otherwise specified, no save [...]"

Ok, then please quote exactly where Ever-living specifies "This can be used after a Sweeping advance"?

ED: your quote must contain the words "Sweeping Advance" to be specified

Ok, then please quote exactly where Ever-living specifies "This can be used after a Sweeping advance"?

And again, it never says what you're claiming it does. If so, please quote where it specifically says that you can use Everliving to save your model from a Sweeping Advance.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it never says what you're claiming it does. If so, please quote where it specifically says that you can use Everliving to sav your model from a Sweeping Advance.

Necron codex p.29, explanation a to why it is allowed has been given further above.

And again, you're avoiding the question because it NEVER says anything about Sweeping Advance. You have NOTHING to support your claims.

Necron Codex, page 29, under the Ever-Living rules

"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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

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

Sweeping Advance is not mentioned under the EL rules. Curiously, neither does the rule specified what happens to a EL counter in a unit that was wiped out.
Though that did receive an FAQ. Oddly, it seems that a unit that falls back has to remove EL counters as well.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
"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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter."

Here is the exact quote. I do not see the words "Sweeping Advance": It has not been "otherwise specified"

Not sure what you want to say there Cthulhu, guessing editing?

Just presenting the data for all to see. I find it very difficult to have to go back and forth from the book when analyzing a rule. I prefer everything to be in the same place.
It's a convenience thing, really.

Sigvatr - where is sweeping advance SPECIFIED in the EL rules? It isn't.

You're cheating if you put an el model back, as for them the battle is over.

I'll give you a pointer as to what specified means as well ATSKNF. notice that contains the words " sweeping advance"? That is specifying.

RAW EL does not operate when a unit is sweeping advanced, as the EL rule does not specifically mention sweeping advance.

Oh, and as you know, from your selective quoting, I was addressing the timing fallacious argument you were making, in claiming that somehow el operates "after" SA, so is exempt. It isn't, and proving this by using a rule that was denied enpven thoug it always worked at least a turn later than el does to probe it, which I did.

Oh, this again. Let's see iirc, the argument works something like; SA destroys the unit caught in it (being removed as a casualty) with no saves or special rules saving the unit, Well RP/EL doesn't save them they are removed so SA is carried out with EL counters in their place, so then you roll for RP/EL. But wait SA states for them the battle is over but does that actually mean they can't come back?

So the entire thing comes down to what "for them the battle is over" is really supposed to do, is it actually a rule and therefore denies RP/EL, is it just there as a little fluffy statement thing (that we all know are prevelant in the 6ed rule book), frankly I am not sure.

All I can say is in at least two rules that exempt some of the strange necron rules they explicitly say so, ie snap fireing weapons that don't roll to hit (monolith portal) and STR D vs RP/EL.

Actually, no.
The contention comes from "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

The "for them, this battle is over" is just a description showing how dead they are. It is not an actual rule.

That's the fallacious timing argument. Thing is, it didn't work in 4th and 5th either, with something that operated even later than el , so why does this now work?

It doesn't, there is a CLEAR instruction that "for them, the battle is over". Battle is defined, and you don't get much clearer than that.

Attempting to resurrect and save a unit with el is cheating.

You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesn't, there is a CLEAR instruction that "for them, the battle is over". Battle is defined, and you don't get much clearer than that.

I can't take any argument seriously that begins with the belief that "for them the battle is over" is an actual rule.

For the actual logical arguments that have been made - I do see the point about specific exception required and as a Necron player I've never really bothered to argue the point. In the rare case a model with EL doesn't have his EL counter surrounded by advancing enemies - hence negating EL anyway - I've just let him die. Hopefully the issue is addressed when the FAQs are updated and returned.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

No, it isn't. If there is nothing that could save them from being removed as a casualty, then EL, a rule that saves them from being casualties, would not work. There is no after.

Let me put it this way - does EL specify, anywhere, that it ignores Sweeping Advance? Because the SA rule very clearly states that it must be specified.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

And EL saves them from being a casualty, correct? As in, they are no longer a casualty if EL succeeds.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Imperator_Class wrote:
You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

And EL saves them from being a casualty, correct? As in, they are no longer a casualty if EL succeeds.

no, the EL model is removed as a casualty

is EL a save? no
is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no
Does SA specifically deny EL like destroyer weapons do? no
Destroyer weapons calls EL a special roll.

so at the end of a phase, it can make it's special EL roll.

You can 'save' a model without making a saving roll. If the model remains in the game when normally it would have been removed then it was indeed 'saved'.

Is EL saving your model? yesit is, so how is it not a save? please define save?

SA doesn't say its limited by pg 33.

You have the rest backwards, you need to provide proof that EL works after a SA not the opposite.

EL doesn't work after a SA.

Notice how ATSKNF SPECIFICALLY states it works on SA? That's the language EL requires.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Is EL saving your model? yesit is, so how is it not a save? please define save?

SA doesn't say its limited by pg 33.

You have the rest backwards, you need to provide proof that EL works after a SA not the opposite.

EL doesn't work after a SA.

Notice how ATSKNF SPECIFICALLY states it works on SA? That's the language EL requires.

saves are defined on pg 16, to include armor, cover and invulns

like when other weapons ignore saves, that only applies to armor, cover, and invulns, not to RP and EL.

sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Necron Codex, page 29, under the Ever-Living rules

"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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

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

Sweeping Advance is not mentioned under the EL rules. Curiously, neither does the rule specified what happens to a EL counter in a unit that was wiped out.
Though that did receive an FAQ. Oddly, it seems that a unit that falls back has to remove EL counters as well.

Can you tell me what happens when a unit is destroyed by sweeping advanced?
From the rule book ,I can only say they are "removed as casualties", and this is the timing for Ever-living to act.
Ever-living is of course a special rule in a codex , and as codex special rule is stronger than the basic rule in BRB ,it will be used anytime a model is removed as a casulty .
If Sweeping Advance does not cause models "removed as casualties", Ever-living will never be used.

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

ian_destiny wrote:
Ever-living is of course a special rule in a codex , and as codex special rule is stronger than the basic rule in BRB ,it will be used anytime a model is removed as a casulty .
If Sweeping Advance does not cause models "removed as casualties", Ever-living will never be used.

I've underlined your confusion.
That statement is not always true.

Codex overrides BRB when there's a conflict.
SA says to remove models as casualties. EL says to place tokens.
SA says that no special rule can save the models (bringing them back is saving them). EL does not conflict with this. EL cannot bring them back.

To conflict you'd need a statement that says they can bring them back even if they were removed by SA.

ian_destiny wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Necron Codex, page 29, under the Ever-Living rules

"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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

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

Sweeping Advance is not mentioned under the EL rules. Curiously, neither does the rule specified what happens to a EL counter in a unit that was wiped out.
Though that did receive an FAQ. Oddly, it seems that a unit that falls back has to remove EL counters as well.

Can you tell me what happens when a unit is destroyed by sweeping advanced?
From the rule book ,I can only say they are "removed as casualties", and this is the timing for Ever-living to act.
Ever-living is of course a special rule in a codex , and as codex special rule is stronger than the basic rule in BRB ,it will be used anytime a model is removed as a casulty .
If Sweeping Advance does not cause models "removed as casualties", Ever-living will never be used.

Sweeping Advance also states that no special rule can be used, unless that Rule specifies that it ignores Sweeping Advance. Please read the second part of the Sweeping Advance rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

Assuming you're talking about the biomancy psychic power 'Enfeeble' then no, it's not a 'special rule' for the simple fact that nothing ever defines it as a special rule and not because it's not on pages 32-43 of the 6th edition rulebook. Also you'll find the following on page 32 of the rulebook:

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their own codex.

Trying to claim that 'Everliving' is not a special rule because it is not on page 32 of the rulebook is ludicrous and disproven by page 32 itself. If it says it is a special rule, then it is a special rule. 'Everliving' says it is a special rule, 'Enfeeble' does not.

sirlynchmob wrote:
not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

That is not what you've been told. Please don't misstate positions in an attempt to prove a point.

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

Assuming you're talking about the biomancy psychic power 'Enfeeble' then no, it's not a 'special rule' for the simple fact that nothing ever defines it as a special rule and not because it's not on pages 32-43 of the 6th edition rulebook. Also you'll find the following on page 32 of the rulebook:

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their own codex.

Trying to claim that 'Everliving' is not a special rule because it is not on page 32 of the rulebook is ludicrous and disproven by page 32 itself. If it says it is a special rule, then it is a special rule. 'Everliving' says it is a special rule, 'Enfeeble' does not.

except for pg 68, where it states maledictions can inflict special rules. and pg 32 models might get special rules as the result of a psychic power.

so please show how something that is called a special rule twice isn't, without also rendering EL into not being a SR.

so as EL is not a save nor a SR being used to save the model, it can.

I'm willing to concede that if you agree enfeeble is a SR than so is EL.

Hmmm....

*Looks at the unit entry for Necron Overlord on pg 30 of the codex. Sees "Ever-Living" listed under Special Rules right next to "Independent Character"*

So it's listed specifically as a "Special Rule "....how is it not a Special Rule again?

Is EL really a saving throw though?

The thing is completely removed and off the table until the end of the phase once everything has been resolved.

In a sense the model was fully removed as a casulaty then fully resolved for that combat.

You're confusing what grants the special rule as the special rule itself. By your argument, a plasma pistol isn't a weapon but it's a 'special rule' because of Gets Hot.

'Enfeeble' is not a special rule because it is never noted as being a special rule and doesn't become one even if the affects were to give the affected model a special rule.

'Everliving' is a special rule because it is clearly noted as being such in Codex Necrons.

 Desubot wrote:
Is EL really a saving throw though?

The thing is completely removed and off the table until the end of the phase once everything has been resolved.

In a sense the model was fully removed as a casulaty then fully resolved for that combat.

Of course it isn't. It is a special rule though that saves the model from being removed as a casualty.

I think the difference of the argument is the people that say you can use EL against SA are looking at "removed as a casualty" as simply an action.

I think those of us that are saying that you cannot use EL against SA look at "removed as a casualty" as an action and a status. Once you put the model back on the board with EL or RP, you change it's status from being removed as a casualty to being in play.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

Assuming you're talking about the biomancy psychic power 'Enfeeble' then no, it's not a 'special rule' for the simple fact that nothing ever defines it as a special rule and not because it's not on pages 32-43 of the 6th edition rulebook. Also you'll find the following on page 32 of the rulebook:

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their own codex.

Trying to claim that 'Everliving' is not a special rule because it is not on page 32 of the rulebook is ludicrous and disproven by page 32 itself. If it says it is a special rule, then it is a special rule. 'Everliving' says it is a special rule, 'Enfeeble' does not.

except for pg 68, where it states maledictions can inflict special rules. and pg 32 models might get special rules as the result of a psychic power.

so please show how something that is called a special rule twice isn't, without also rendering EL into not being a SR.

so as EL is not a save nor a SR being used to save the model, it can.

I'm willing to concede that if you agree enfeeble is a SR than so is EL.

Enfeeble is a psychic power and is not listed, ever, as a special rule. There are other Maledictions that cause special rules to be inflicted (and those Maledictions specify the special rules they inflict, for example, Objuration Mechanicum which specifies that it inflicts the Haywire special rule upon its victims, or Terrify which inflicts its victims with the Fear special rule - both make specific mention of an SR being inflicted, unlike Enfeeble).

So, no, Enfeeble is not an SR, Everliving however is explicitly a Special Rule.

 Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesn't, there is a CLEAR instruction that "for them, the battle is over". Battle is defined, and you don't get much clearer than that.

I can't take any argument seriously that begins with the belief that "for them the battle is over" is an actual rule.

For the actual logical arguments that have been made - I do see the point about specific exception required and as a Necron player I've never really bothered to argue the point. In the rare case a model with EL doesn't have his EL counter surrounded by advancing enemies - hence negating EL anyway - I've just let him die. Hopefully the issue is addressed when the FAQs are updated and returned.

Sigh. Selective quoting for the loss there.

It is a clear instruction. After an equally clear rule you also seem to be ignoring.

Current Necron codex FAQ, page 4, direct quote:

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.

All of us should have looked into the FAQ first, including myself. And I pity all Necron players that have been outright cheated by you, nosferatu.

EL does not conflict with SA.

An SA removes a unit as casualties with no opportunity to save it. Unfortunately, EL does not trigger until after the unit has been swept and "removed as a casualty". Is it useful? Not really, since the enemy will most likely just stand on top of the counter.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Current Necron codex FAQ, page 4, direct quote:

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.

All of us should have looked into the FAQ first, including myself. And I pity all Necron players that have been outright cheated by you, nosferatu.

This does not refer to the question in this topic. This Faq refers to the unit being destroyed by conventional method's i believe.

Stratos wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Current Necron codex FAQ, page 4, direct quote:

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.

All of us should have looked into the FAQ first, including myself. And I pity all Necron players that have been outright cheated by you, nosferatu.

This does not refer to the question in this topic. This Faq refers to the unit being destroyed by conventional method's i believe.

It does refer to it as it refers to a unit being wiped out which is exactly what happens if it gets swept. The only case where this does not happen and even Everliving rolls are denied is when the unit runs off the board and this is also specificed in the FAQ.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Stratos wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Current Necron codex FAQ, page 4, direct quote:

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.

All of us should have looked into the FAQ first, including myself. And I pity all Necron players that have been outright cheated by you, nosferatu.

This does not refer to the question in this topic. This Faq refers to the unit being destroyed by conventional method's i believe.

It does refer to it as it refers to a unit being wiped out which is exactly what happens if it gets swept. The only case where this does not happen and even Everliving rolls are denied is when the unit runs off the board and this is also specificed in the FAQ.

Could you please refer me to your Esp provider?

How do you know the context of this statement is referring to something that it is not inferred it refers to? A unit can be "Wiped out" quoted for the fact it is a vague statement in a variety of matters for example, Every kind of weapon, attack, rule, that can kill a unit in the whole 40k universe. I would list them individually but i would be bored by the time i even got to "Boltgun".

 Sigvatr wrote:
It does refer to it as it refers to a unit being wiped out which is exactly what happens if it gets swept. The only case where this does not happen and even Everliving rolls are denied is when the unit runs off the board and this is also specificed in the FAQ.

What else happens when a unit gets swept? Are there any additional rules concerning that?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Current Necron codex FAQ, page 4, direct quote:

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.

All of us should have looked into the FAQ first, including myself. And I pity all Necron players that have been outright cheated by you, nosferatu.

Ah, that gakky FAQ again. Note how it only mentions wiping out in general, and not the specific case of the unit being removed as a result of sweeping advance?

So the more specific rules for SA can just be ignored to justify your outright cheating position? No thanks, I'll stick to the clear as day, brilliantly straightforward rule that NO SPECIAL RULE CAN SAVE THE UNIT unless, and the part you ignore repeatedly, it specifies it works against sweeping advance. EL does not do so, so it does not work against SA . Simple, clear, and exactly as written.

You're trying to save the unit. Rule broken, cheating attempted.

The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

Removed from play. You might want to look that up. The unit is not saved. It is *removed from play*.

"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

I am baffled and disappointed by you being ready to cheat your opponent. Not sure why, just because you hate Necrons? Outright rejecting official FAQs is just insulting for YMDC.

As we're baffled by your refusal to believe that you can use a special rule to save the model from being swept when the rules say you can't use a special rule to save the model.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

Removed from play. You might want to look that up. The unit is not saved. It is *removed from play*.

"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

I am baffled and disappointed by you being ready to cheat your opponent. Not sure why, just because you hate Necrons? Outright rejecting official FAQs is just insulting for YMDC.

I'm baffled by your refusal to answer your opposition when they prove your argument void.

Which is disappointing as in general i believe it is intended to work.

I have seen and taken part in this discussion a number of times.... In the end each side has a non-concrete stance. My local group as looked at all the rules and we play it that swept EL models do not place a token but model that died in combat still can use their EL.

What is the book's definition of Destroyed? The only answer I can find is that the models are removed as casualties.

Before anyone starts calling anyone a cheater ask yourself if you move drop pods 1" away from enemy models when inertial guidance is triggered. If you answer yes you are using a RAI not RAW interpretation which is what many players of Necrons believe they are doing when using EL to return a destroyed model to play.

Can someone give me a page for the specific rule over riding general rules rule from the BRB? I see it quoted as gospel in virtually every thread yet I do not remember anyone backing it up with a page number. Is it a continued convention from the past or is there an actual rule backing up this stance?

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

Sigvatr wrote:The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

Removed from play. You might want to look that up. The unit is not saved. It is *removed from play*.

So when you put the unit back on the board, the unit has not been saved by a special rule? Are you SURE on that?

How about when a medic takes a clinically dead person and restarts their heart - has the medic saved them?

Sigvatr wrote:"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

"Spite"? As a necron player, I sincerely hope you withdraw that insult and denegration to anothers character. Shame on you.

Oh, and I never said the unit has not been removed from play. That is a lie that you have created to try to make your position seem slightly more sound. They are, indeed, removed from play. Attempting to put them back on is saving them, and is doing so through a special rule, and a special ruel that doesnt specify it works against Sweeping Advance. AKA Cheating.

Sigvatr wrote:I am baffled and disappointed by you being ready to cheat your opponent. Not sure why, just because you hate Necrons? Outright rejecting official FAQs is just insulting for YMDC.

As is your rejecting of:
a) every rule refuting your cheating position
b) every poster showing your flawed, destroyed argument for what it is - flawed, refuted, unarguably corrupted by a failure to read even the most basic ruels in the BRB - and the insults you pile on them, claiming they are arguing frmoa position of bias

Retract your lies, spiteful accusations of bias, and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as your argument is refuted. RAW EL helps not one jot against SA. Returning the unit to play - SAVING the unit - is cheating. Unarguably, unutterably so.

 Sigvatr wrote:
"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

Incorrect. Everliving never mentions a unit being removed from play. Perhaps you're getting unit confused with model?

Instead of assuming people aren't debating honestly (and throwing words around like "cheat" and "spite"), perhaps you should step back and actually read the rules you're attempting to quote.

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

"at this stage" .... at what stage? At the stage where they have been "swept" I'd have said.

EL rolls take place at the end of the phase, that's "at another stage" .

I'm not convinced the Sweeping Advance prohibition on saves and other special rules extends beyond the ability to prevent the sweeping advance to the extent where it prevents Ever Living.

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

"at this stage" .... at what stage? At the stage where they have been "swept" I'd have said.

EL rolls take place at the end of the phase, that's "at another stage" .

I'm not convinced the Sweeping Advance prohibition on saves and other special rules extends beyond the ability to prevent the sweeping advance to the extent where it prevents Ever Living.

WBB operated the turn after, at the earliest. "At this stage" has not altered since 4th edition. WBB was an example of a rule that oculd not save the unit.
That interpretation is flawed, as pointed out.

Again, from page 27 of the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition rulebook (emphasis added):

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.

'Everliving' is listed as a special rule in Codex Necrons and does not specify that it works when swept. Therefore per the rules when swept 'Everliving' does not come into play and for the model "... the battle is over".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

It's the timing that's decisive here. We are still talking of Sweeping Advance and its specifications here. As soon as the model is swept and removed as a casualty, Sweeping Advance is over and done. After this happened, EL kicks in. This is why it does not contradict Sweeping Advance, this is why EL is specifically worded differently from RP and this is why the order of operations is very important when having a look at how rules works.

 Ghaz wrote:

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

Explanation above.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

As is your rejecting of
a) every rule refuting your cheating position
b) every poster showing your flawed, destroyed argument for what it is - flawed, refuted, unarguably corrupted by a failure to read even the most basic ruels in the BRB - and the insults you pile on them, claiming they are arguing frmoa position of bias

Retract your lies, spiteful accusations of bias, and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as your argument is refuted. RAW EL helps not one jot against SA. Returning the unit to play - SAVING the unit - is cheating. Unarguably, unutterably so.

You reject basic logical assumptions / argumentation and official, GW-published FAQs (along with the basic, underlying rules) because they do not follow your HYWPI interpretation of the rules and claim everyone disagreeing with being a cheater while you are indeed the one cheating. And lest not remember who of us started calling others cheaters, hm?

You are fine to play how you want, nosferatu, and I think, personally, that it's fine to play it your way if your opponents agree with your interpretation. Seeing as this is YMDC, however, I prefer sticking to the rules at hand.

Except 'Everliving' doesn't work when you're swept so you wouldn't place a counter. No counter, no returning the model to play.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except 'Everliving' doesn't work when you're swept so you wouldn't place a counter. No counter, no returning the model to play.

Exactly. EL works after you were swept, as specified in the rule itself / Necron FAQ.

And again, it STILL doesn't work even with you're imaginary timing trying to ignore the rules. No counter, no returning to play.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it STILL doesn't work even with you're imaginary timing trying to ignore the rules. No counter, no returning to play.

And again, it STILL does work even with your imaginary timing trying to ignore the rules.

Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

It's the timing that's decisive here. We are still talking of Sweeping Advance and its specifications here. As soon as the model is swept and removed as a casualty, Sweeping Advance is over and done. After this happened, EL kicks in. This is why it does not contradict Sweeping Advance, this is why EL is specifically worded differently from RP and this is why the order of operations is very important when having a look at how rules works.

Wrong.

Again, has the UNIT been saved? Yes. Therfore a rule was broken.

Sigvatr wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

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

Explanation above.

So you are trying to save the unit but think doing it later works? Interesting way to try to break the rules.

Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

As is your rejecting of
a) every rule refuting your cheating position
b) every poster showing your flawed, destroyed argument for what it is - flawed, refuted, unarguably corrupted by a failure to read even the most basic ruels in the BRB - and the insults you pile on them, claiming they are arguing frmoa position of bias

Retract your lies, spiteful accusations of bias, and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as your argument is refuted. RAW EL helps not one jot against SA. Returning the unit to play - SAVING the unit - is cheating. Unarguably, unutterably so.

You reject basic logical assumptions / argumentation and official, GW-published FAQs (along with the basic, underlying rules) because they do not follow your HYWPI interpretation of the rules and claim everyone disagreeing with being a cheater while you are indeed the one cheating. And lest not remember who of us started calling others cheaters, hm?

You are fine to play how you want, nosferatu, and I think, personally, that it's fine to play it your way if your opponents agree with your interpretation. Seeing as this is YMDC, however, I prefer sticking to the rules at hand.

So no apology for your lies? I noted your again inabiltiy to respond substantively, selecting quotes to avoid the parts where you lied about what was written in order to make your argument seem more sound. Or the part where you accused someone of argunig froma position of bias against the army.

I have not rejected the FAQ. I even stated exactly how the FAQ is overwritten by the MORE SPECIFIC SA rule. Apparently the concept of specific > general is something you are not familiar with - the FAQ is not relevant as a more specific rule takes its place. There are elementary explanations of this concept if this is needed, which I suggest you review before going further.

I have stuck to the rules, you are breaking them, lying about others arguments and stating they are arguing a point for personal gain. WHen corrected on this, and a request is made for an apology, you ignore it.

Your posts will be consisdered "HYWPI" in future, as you cannot seem to argue in good faith. Good day.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again, has the UNIT been saved? Yes. Therfore a rule was broken.

Explanation why this assumption is wrong has been given multiple times already. Look it up in my previous posts, google it on other forums etc. Not going to explain it thrice.

So no apology for your lies? I noted your again inabiltiy to respond substantively, selecting quotes to avoid the parts where you lied about what was written in order to make your argument seem more sound. Or the part where you accused someone of argunig froma position of bias against the army.

I have not rejected the FAQ. I even stated exactly how the FAQ is overwritten by the MORE SPECIFIC SA rule. Apparently the concept of specific > general is something you are not familiar with - the FAQ is not relevant as a more specific rule takes its place. There are elementary explanations of this concept if this is needed, which I suggest you review before going further.

I have stuck to the rules, you are breaking them, lying about others arguments and stating they are arguing a point for personal gain. WHen corrected on this, and a request is made for an apology, you ignore it.

Your posts will be consisdered "HYWPI" in future, as you cannot seem to argue in good faith. Good day.

That's a mighty high horse you got there, might be careful dropping off it. Ride into the sunset, Don Quijote. Yeeeehaw.

No it doesn't. We've shown you actual rules that back up our position. All you've done is make imaginary reasons as to why it does, each and every one we've disproved. Now how about showing how you can make an 'Everliving' roll without a counter, or are you just going to keep trolling?

 Ghaz wrote:
No it doesn't. We've shown you actual rules that back up our position. All you've done is make imaginary reasons as to why it does, each and every one we've disproved. Now how about showing how you can make an 'Everliving' roll without a counter, or are you just going to keep trolling?

How about you show me where exactly SA and EL conflict?

EL is an attempt to rescue the unit. WHat does SA prohibit again? Oh, yes, Special Rules that try to rescue the unit.

So, found any rules yet? Or an apology for your lying? Or for where you decided I and others are arguing from a position of bias against Necrons? Nothing?

Please, per the tenets of the forum, mark your arguments as "HYWPI" as you have failed to back them up with rules quotes / citations. You have quoted rules, but nothing that actually backs up your argument.

How can a unit be removed as casualties? Wouldn't it be removed as a casualty? Can someone define destroyed for me based off of rules?

 Ghaz wrote:
Except 'Everliving' doesn't work when you're swept so you wouldn't place a counter. No counter, no returning the model to play.

Why doesn't Ever Living work while you are swept? What specifically denies the placement of a counter?
The placing of a counter does not "save the unit" in fact a sucessful EL roll doesn't save the unit either, they all still die, it just some are brought back from the dead.

Justicar Thawn and St Celestine have similar rules that allow them to come back from the dead.

I say again the "no special rule can save the unit" has been extended far beyond it's remit. It can only mean that there is no special rule that can stop the unit being swept ..... OH except "And they shall know know fear" which as it turns out IS a special rule that saves the unit. Yes it specifically says it does but the point is it, it stops the unit being swept at all, it doesn't say the unit is swept but comes back from the dead. EL does that, the Necron are still caught they still die like the carp BUT the Ever Living characters can still get back up.

The sweep is not prevented, the unit is not saved, the Necron just reanimate, Like Thrawn and St Celestine


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
EL is an attempt to rescue the unit. WHat does SA prohibit again? Oh, yes, Special Rules that try to rescue the unit.argument.

This is where we are going wrong. EL is not an attempt to save the unit, The unit is dead. In fact it HAS to be dead before you can attempt EL.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
EL is an attempt to rescue the unit. WHat does SA prohibit again? Oh, yes, Special Rules that try to rescue the unit.

So, found any rules yet? Or an apology for your lying? Or for where you decided I and others are arguing from a position of bias against Necrons? Nothing?

Please, per the tenets of the forum, mark your arguments as "HYWPI" as you have failed to back them up with rules quotes / citations. You have quoted rules, but nothing that actually backs up your argument.

I am still waiting for you to point exactly to the rules where EL prevents the unit from being removed as a casualty. Open to any suggestions, right now.

Maybe you are just making a misunderstanding here and you aren't cheating on purpose?

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

It's the timing that's decisive here. We are still talking of Sweeping Advance and its specifications here. As soon as the model is swept and removed as a casualty, Sweeping Advance is over and done. After this happened, EL kicks in. This is why it does not contradict Sweeping Advance, this is why EL is specifically worded differently from RP and this is why the order of operations is very important when having a look at how rules works.

Sweeping Advances says that no special rule can save the unit at this stage.
Those last three words are important and you're ignoring them. Perhaps it's a language issue, but "at this stage" means "from now until the next stage". Since we're never told that it's okay to bring them back now, it never is.
And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

rigeld2 wrote:

And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

There is nothing beyond your opinion that says that though. There is zero RAW for that mate, not a jot.

The EL rules actually say that at the end of the phase you can attempt bring the unit back. That isn't saving it, it is resurrecting it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Sweeping Advances says that no special rule can save the unit at this stage.
Those last three words are important and you're ignoring them. Perhaps it's a language issue, but "at this stage" means "from now until the next stage". Since we're never told that it's okay to bring them back now, it never is.
And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

Placing the EL token, though, takes place after SA, thus SA is not taken into consideration for the special rule to happen. The part in SA denying any saves or any special rule states that nothing can be done to save the unit from being destroyed and EL doesn't do so - in the contrary, the rule itself clearly states that the unit in question is removed as a casualty. That is the key factor here and the reason why this specific part of the SA rule is not taken into consideration or rather does not conflict with EL.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

There is nothing beyond your opinion that says that though. There is zero RAW for that mate, not a jot.

Really? So you're placing the EL token to not save the unit? The special rule allowing you to place the token disagrees, "mate".

The EL rules actually say that at the end of the phase you can attempt bring the unit back. That isn't saving it, it is resurrecting it.

No, they do not. The EL rules never, ever, say that you can attempt to bring the unit back. Please don't make up rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Sweeping Advances says that no special rule can save the unit at this stage.
Those last three words are important and you're ignoring them. Perhaps it's a language issue, but "at this stage" means "from now until the next stage". Since we're never told that it's okay to bring them back now, it never is.
And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

Placing the EL token, though, takes place after SA, thus SA is not taken into consideration for the special rule to happen. The part in SA denying any saves or any special rule states that nothing can be done to save the unit from being destroyed and EL doesn't do so - in the contrary, the rule itself clearly states that the unit in question is removed as a casualty. That is the key factor here and the reason why this specific part of the SA rule is not taken into consideration or rather does not conflict with EL.

The underlined is incorrect - placing the token happens when the model is removed, not at some indeterminate point after.
And no, EL literally never says "that the unit in question is removed as a casualty". It's a model based rule, not a unit based one.

rigeld2 wrote:

And no, EL literally never says "that the unit in question is removed as a casualty". It's a model based rule, not a unit based one.

Ah, my bad, I use unit and model as synonyms in cases where it's appropriate as techically, even a single model is a unit too. In this very case, you can replace "unit" and "model" without any harm done, unless you think there is a specific reason not to?

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And no, EL literally never says "that the unit in question is removed as a casualty". It's a model based rule, not a unit based one.

Ah, my bad, I use unit and model as synonyms in cases where it's appropriate as techically, even a single model is a unit too. In this very case, you can replace "unit" and "model" without any harm done, unless you think there is a specific reason not to?

They're never synonyms, especially when you say things like "The EL rules actually say that at the end of the phase you can attempt bring the unit back" and the EL rules don't actually say that.
A single model is a single model unit. They're different things. Conflating them creates confusion.

Does SA destroy the unit or the model? Does putting the a unit back on the table save the unit?

When a character comes back as a result of EL, it's a new unit.

Also, EL is a special rule, and is referred to as such in the FAQ: (potentially relevant FAQ entries posted)
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/Necrons.pdf



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.

=====
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.

===
On the second one, I'd argue that if the EL character was alive and ran off the board, no roll for him, but if he died and the rest of his unit ran off the board, EL is a go.

rigeld2 wrote:

A single model is a single model unit. They're different things. Conflating them creates confusion.

Does SA destroy the unit or the model? Does putting the a unit back on the table save the unit?

Correct on the upper part, I tried to say so in the previous post, hope that was clear. Kinda

SA destroys the entire unit if the model with EL was part of the unit when it was swept. A character model that is part of a unit, however, does not cease being a character model, it still is different from another rank-and-file model in the unit. A Court member, e.g. is still a court member and not a Necron Warrior and therefore keeps its special rules. As others (or you, can't remember, sorry) have already pointed out, EL is a rule that always belongs to a single model, not a whole unit. That's why all regular troops with WBB will die and cannot place a marker on the board: they got WBB whereas only the character has the EL special rule.

 loreweaver wrote:
When a character comes back as a result of EL, it's a new unit.

Citation needed. So it's a victory point for a destroyed unit every time?
And Dark Eldar get lots of PFP tokens?

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.

Oh - nope. It doesn't. So your statement is incorrect.

Cross-referencing rules from other codices, especially those with different mechanics, is not a valid measure to debate RAW, it's used to debate RAI.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A single model is a single model unit. They're different things. Conflating them creates confusion.

Does SA destroy the unit or the model? Does putting the a unit back on the table save the unit?

Correct on the upper part, I tried to say so in the previous post, hope that was clear. Kinda

Also, selectively editing when quoting is annoying unless you're only responding to part of the post.

SA destroys the entire unit if the model with EL was part of the unit when it was swept. A character model that is part of a unit, however, does not cease being a character model, it still is different from another rank-and-file model in the unit. A Court member, e.g. is still a court member and not a Necron Warrior and therefore keeps its special rules. As others (or you, can't remember, sorry) have already pointed out, EL is a rule that always belongs to a single model, not a whole unit. That's why all regular troops with WBB will die and cannot place a marker on the board: they got WBB whereas only the character has the EL special rule.

First of all, it's Reanimation Protocols, not WBB.
Second, nothing you said answered my second question - Does putting a unit back on the table save the unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Cross-referencing rules from other codices, especially those with different mechanics, is not a valid measure to debate RAW, it's used to debate RAI.

False.
I cited the FAQ to prove that the EL character is the same unit it left the table as.

rigeld2 wrote:

First of all, it's Reanimation Protocols, not WBB.

TruCron player, sticking to it

Second, nothing you said answered my second question - Does putting a unit back on the table save the unit?

The only unit that can do so is the Royal Court as it is the only unit where everyone has the EL special rule. If we're talking unit /= model here, as fielding a single Imotekh would still make him a unit. 1-man-unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

False.
I cited the FAQ to prove that the EL character is the same unit it left the table as.

False. RAW-wise, the only thing you did was quoting the DE rule. Everything you derived from that comparison is RAI / HYWPI, not RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Second, nothing you said answered my second question - Does putting a unit back on the table save the unit?

The only unit that can do so is the Royal Court as it is the only unit where everyone has the EL special rule. If we're talking unit /= model here, as fielding a single Imotekh would still make him a unit. 1-man-unit.

So a Lord attached to a unit of Warriors - if the entire unit is shot to death and the Lord stands back up, is that a new RC unit or the same Warrior unit?
Please cite rules to support your answer.

False. RAW-wise, the only thing you did was quoting the DE rule. Everything you derived from that comparison is RAI / HYWPI, not RAW.

Then answer the question:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

rigeld2 wrote:

So a Lord attached to a unit of Warriors - if the entire unit is shot to death and the Lord stands back up, is that a new RC unit or the same Warrior unit?
Please cite rules to support your answer.

It is a new unit, he now is a 1-man unit. Necron FAQ, p.4:

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.

rigeld2 wrote:
Then answer the question:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

1 VP for slaying the enemy warlord, assuming that he was the enemy warlord and not the secondary HQ.

The FAQ's are in disarray.

There was a CSM entry in a FAQ that stated that you only got a boon roll if ever-living was failed.

I also remember reading that you "always got" an EL roll, even if the unit was swept. I can find neither reference in the FAQ's on black library.

Something is up though, if you look at the rulebook one, it's clearly been edited since the original September update...

Anyone with a digital 'cron dex handy that clarifies EL? Mine iPad's at homezor.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So a Lord attached to a unit of Warriors - if the entire unit is shot to death and the Lord stands back up, is that a new RC unit or the same Warrior unit?
Please cite rules to support your answer.

It is a new unit, he now is a 1-man unit. Necron FAQ, p.4:

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.

That FAQ never says he's a new unit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Then answer the question:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

1 VP for slaying the enemy warlord, assuming that he was the enemy warlord and not the secondary HQ.

According to your assertion above I've destroyed 4 units. Why would I only get 1 point? Assume Purge The Alien as that apparently wasn't clear.

rigeld2 wrote:

That FAQ never says he's a new unit.

Of course it does O_o It even refers to his former unit as his...well.."former unit". Also refer to Ever-Living, as it explicitely makes a difference between the EL model and the unit it joined.

According to your assertion above I've destroyed 4 units. Why would I only get 1 point? Assume Purge The Alien as that apparently wasn't clear.

VP are counted at the end of the game. If the Overlord is dead at the end of the game, you get 1 VP for killing him and 1 VP for killing his unit (if he was in one before he / they died). Refer to your opponent's army list if you want to know which units he had at the start of the game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That FAQ never says he's a new unit.

Of course it does O_o It even refers to his former unit as his...well.."former unit".

It doesn't ever use the word "former". Please, when attempting to quote things, actually use words that are there instead of making them up.

According to your assertion above I've destroyed 4 units. Why would I only get 1 point? Assume Purge The Alien as that apparently wasn't clear.

VP are counted at the end of the game. If the Overlord is dead at the end of the game, you get 1 VP for killing him and 1 VP for killing his unit (if he was in one before he / they died). Refer to your opponent's army list if you want to know which units he had at the start of the game.

p126 BRB wrote:At the end of the game, each player receives 1Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed.

How many units have I completely destroyed?

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't ever use the word "former". Please, when attempting to quote things, actually use words that are there instead of making them up.

My bad, EL does. I do acknowledge you agreeing in general though.

rigeld2 wrote:

How many units have I completely destroyed?

I'm not even sure if you're trolling now or if you seriously are not familiar with the very basics of playing a 40k game, i.e. calculating VP. Tending to assume the former.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't ever use the word "former". Please, when attempting to quote things, actually use words that are there instead of making them up.

My bad, EL does. I do acknowledge you agreeing in general though.

I'm not agreeing in general. The lack of the word you used to make your argument means... it doesn't help your argument.
And EL does not use the word former. Anywhere on page 29. Again, when attempting to cite rules, please do so correctly.

rigeld2 wrote:
How many units have I completely destroyed?

I'm not even sure if you're trolling now or if you seriously are not familiar with the very basics of playing a 40k game, i.e. calculating VP. Tending to assume the former.

No, it's an honest question that has a simple answer. Please answer it and don't avoid the question.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please answer it and don't avoid the question.

BRB, p.122, 123, 127. States exactly when you get VP, how many, how and which units and even models are affected.

Apologies for the "former" issue, the wording was incorrect whereas the point got across. I'd appreciate you doing some reading up on basic rules in return or opening a new thread in YMDC on how VP are calculated.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please answer it and don't avoid the question.

BRB, p.122, 123, 127. States exactly when you get VP, how many, how and which units and even models are affected.

Apologies for the "former" issue, the wording was incorrect whereas the point got across. I'd appreciate you doing some reading up on basic rules in return or opening a new thread in YMDC on how VP are calculated.

I quoted the rule on page 127 I'm referring to. Please answer my question or explain why you won't. It's a single number.

And no, the point didn't get across because of your incorrect wording. You've failed to explain your point. Utterly. Please understand I'm not mocking - in my last post I asked you to cite rules to support your argument, and in response you said "the point got across". Please try again.

Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

I want you to give me a number. It's an honest, on topic question. Why are you refusing to provide it?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

I want you to give me a number. It's an honest, on topic question. Why are you refusing to provide it?

Instead of making a point, you resort to continous questions despite knowing the answer already. This is nothing but mocking or trolling and I'm not jumping on that bandwagon. You got two possibilites:

a) If you are really experiencing trouble with VP calculation and Necrons / WWB, open a YMDC thread. I and others will be glad (honestly) to help you out.

b) Cut the trolling and state your point.

Anything else is a waste of time. YMDC is supposed to provide answers to honest questions. Your question is not an honest question as you know the answer already.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

I want you to give me a number. It's an honest, on topic question. Why are you refusing to provide it?

Instead of making a point, you resort to continous questions despite knowing the answer already. This is nothing but mocking or trolling and I'm not jumping on that bandwagon. You got two possibilites:

a) If you are really experiencing trouble with VP calculation and Necrons / WWB, open a YMDC thread. I and others will be glad (honestly) to help you out.

b) Cut the trolling and state your point.

Anything else is a waste of time.

Sigh.

I don't know the answer. Or at least, I don't know what the answer is using your argument.
Using the actual rules (where the unit isn't a new one every time) the answer is 1 (or 2 if it's the Warlord). Using your argument (where a EL model that stands back up alone is a new unit) the answer would be 4 (or 5 if it's the warlord).
Is that correct?

What kind of unit is a Lord who used to be a member of a Warrior unit? Is he scoring?

Thanks.

1-3 (1 normal individual (!) character, 2 if also warlord, 3 if he was part of a unit that got swept, as you get 1 for the unit) is correct. The reason is that you count VP at the end of the game. Only units destroyed at that point count towards the VP you receive and in order to know how many units your enemy had, you refer to his army list.

Exceptions are listed on p. 127 (fleeing in last turn, not on board, etc.).

/e: Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Thanks.

1-3 (1 normal individual (!) character, 2 if also warlord, 3 if he was part of a unit that got swept, as you get 1 for the unit) is correct. The reason is that you count VP at the end of the game. Only units destroyed at that point count towards the VP you receive and in order to know how many units your enemy had, you refer to his army list.

I've completely destroyed 4 different (according to your argument) units.
Please show rules support for the underlined.
Do Termagants spawned by a Tervigon give Victory Points? After all, they don't show up on my Army List.

/e: Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

Lord. Since I said Lord and not Overlord...

I got no idea how the Termagant issue is handled but would imagine that there are special rules for said issue in the corresponding codex.

I would have to look the scoring issue up, RAW-wise, but I'd consider them being part of the unit as they lack the individual character rule and aren't part of the original unit either. I'd treat them in the same way as Wolfguard. Feel free to RAW it up.

/e: Okay, screw this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533174.page

I asked you to stop the trolling, and you're doing the exact same thing, again, asking questions you already know the answer to and even answered in this very forum. Go troll someone else, thanks. Bye.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I got no idea how the Termagant issue is handled but would imagine that there are special rules for said issue in the corresponding codex.

I would have to look the scoring issue up, RAW-wise, but I'd consider them being part of the unit as they lack the individual character rule and aren't part of the original unit either. I'd treat them in the same way as Wolfguard. Feel free to RAW it up.

/e: Okay, screw this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533174.page

I asked you to stop the trolling, and you're doing the exact same thing, again, asking questions you already know the answer to and even answered in this very forum. Go troll someone else, thanks. Bye.

It's a valid debate tactic to prove to you why your assertions were wrong.
It's more adult to admit you were wrong than to call me a troll when I demonstrably wasn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

Lord. Since I said Lord and not Overlord...

Actually, rigeld:

rigeld2 wrote:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

Happyjew wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

Lord. Since I said Lord and not Overlord...

Actually, rigeld:

rigeld2 wrote:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

I'm sure it was an honest mistake.

Actually... (because this was the post he was responding to)

rigeld2 wrote:What kind of unit is a Lord who used to be a member of a Warrior unit? Is he scoring?

Underlined for emphasis.

Sorry, I thought you were still referring to the Overlord question (since he never did answer it). He just kinda claimed you were trolling since you "don't know how to calculate VPs".

This thread is a bit out of control - even going by the usual 'standards' of YMDC.

So, General In Thread Warning Time!

Rule #1 will be strictly enforced from this point forward - breaking it now will result in suspensions for all involved parties.

Thanks!

For clarity; key phrases to the rule:

"removed as casualties"

"no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

EL states what happens when a unit is removed as casualties. and removing as casualties =/= removing from play. Removing from play comes from weapons such as exile rays, tesseract labyrinths, jaws of the werewolf, D Weapons, ect... SA is not one of them otherwise it would have stated this.

The conflict comes down to whether or not you believe "cannot be rescued" is the same as rolling for EL. I'm, personally, of the opinion that the rule is future-proofing or bullet proofing the rule so that any special rules that might state currently or the in the future:

"if this model would be removed as a casualty... roll a D6 and on a 2+ the model survives with one wound remaining..."

such they would not resolve as there'd be no rules to deal with what happens if someone survived during a SA.

Necrons, however, do not survive SA. The effect of SA is carried out, the unit is removed as casualties and thus ends the effect of SA.

RP tokens as a result are lost and EL tokens are left behind. If your opponent was smart enough, then he consolidate over the EL tokens to prevent them from coming back. And I'm fine with that because if I lose Trazyn, for example, I still get surrogate hosts if you've consolidated over him and I don't think it makes sense that you can kill him and consolidate over him to prevent his reanimation but if you sweep him then you prevent his surrogate hosts too?

sonicaucie wrote:
EL states what happens when a unit is removed as casualties. and removing as casualties =/= removing from play. Removing from play comes from weapons such as exile rays, tesseract labyrinths, jaws of the werewolf, D Weapons, ect... SA is not one of them otherwise it would have stated this.

From the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition Main Rulebook FAQ v1.5:

Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes.

Please stop accusing each other of trolling. It violates Rule Number One, which is Be Polite. Thanks.

 Ghaz wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
EL states what happens when a unit is removed as casualties. and removing as casualties =/= removing from play. Removing from play comes from weapons such as exile rays, tesseract labyrinths, jaws of the werewolf, D Weapons, ect... SA is not one of them otherwise it would have stated this.

From the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition Main Rulebook FAQ v1.5:

Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes.

Counting as isn't the same as it being the same thing.

You can be in a challenge in combat and count as being in base contact only with the other challenger. But that doesn't mean that you're only in base contact with him otherwise it would be impossible to charge an ongoing challenge between 2 characters as you'd never be locked in combat as they only "count as being in base contact with each other". The point being that you can still be in base contact, but you don't count as being so.

In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

 Ghaz wrote:
In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

Can you show me where it says this in the rulebook?

sonicaucie wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

Can you show me where it says this in the rulebook?

It's in how they use the phrase.
Consistently throughout the rulebook, GW uses "counts as" in the same way "is" is used.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

Can you show me where it says this in the rulebook?

It's in how they use the phrase.
Consistently throughout the rulebook, GW uses "counts as" in the same way "is" is used.

Can you show me an example that isn't being used in sort of context I provided?

Generally, I've found, when the rulebook or codex uses "counts as" it's being used to provide the models with a condition that they aren't actually in or to utilise conditions that they've been given that they may or may not actually be in.

I.E: Temporal Snares, all movement counts as moving through difficult terrain. This imbues the model with all the restrictions and permissions that difficult terrain gives the model but the model is not actually in difficult terrain and thus would not get any permission to use a rule that specifically requires the model to literally be in difficult terrain. This is how I've always interpreted it atleast.

The quote you've shown, would be granting the permissions that "being removed as casualties" would give a model. However, the model is still removed from play and thus does not get an EL or RP roll since there is no model in play to use EL or RP regardless of the fact that he has been removed as a casualty.

But, if a model has an ability or rule like "this unit gains rage if a model in the unit is removed as a casualty", then he'd still get that ability as there is sufficient permission for it to be carried out.

If you can give me an example that runs contrary to this, I will concede the point.

Charging through difficult terrain with model makes the entire unit count as charging through difficult terrain.
Regrouping forces the unit to count as having moved.
Brotherhood of Psykers count as ML1. If they're not actually ML1, how do they generate warp charges?
Difficult Terrain counts as Dangerous when Deep Striking.
Units still in Reserve at the end of the game sadly count as destroyed.
An IC counts as a member of his unit for all rules purposes.

There's more.

Like I said above, it's about sufficient permissions and conflicts. EL & RP conflicts with remove from play but not the counts as casualties. The remove from play supercedes EL & RP regardless of any permissions that being removed as casualties grants it.

Charging through difficult terrain with model makes the entire unit count as charging through difficult terrain.
- There is no conflict, it is merely imbuing the rest of the unit with the condition of charging through difficult terrain when it otherwise didn't.

Regrouping forces the unit to count as having moved.
- As above, it's a restriction put on the unit.

Brotherhood of Psykers count as ML1. If they're not actually ML1, how do they generate warp charges?
- There is no conflict here either, they gain all the permissions of the "counts as" condition but they are not ML1.

Difficult Terrain counts as Dangerous when Deep Striking.
- No conflict, it's a condition placed upon the unit. They are landing in difficult terrain that counts as dangerous, but again, it's not dangerous terrain.

Units still in Reserve at the end of the game sadly count as destroyed.
- As above, counts as being destroyed and thus inherits all the benefits and problems with that condition. Even though it is not destroyed.

An IC counts as a member of his unit for all rules purposes.
- He counts as being part of his unit for all purposes but he is still his own unit.

Counts as =/= is

An IC in a unit is not part of the unit, but he counts as being part of it for all intents and purposes. A unit can charge into combat with an ongoing challenge but cannot strike blows. This is not because the characters in the challenge are only in base contact with each other, but because they count as being in base contact with each other. However, this does not negate the reality that they may be in base contact with other models.

"counting as being removed as casualties" is not the same as being removed as casualties. EL would inherit the problems from both being removed from play and as casualties and being removed from play would mean that EL can't take place. Can't takes precedence under these circumstances and thus the model is removed with no EL but "counts as being removed as a casualty" for the purposes of any other rules or sequences still in effect that would not conflict with being removed from play.

sonicaucie wrote:
An IC in a unit is not part of the unit, but he counts as being part of it for all intents and purposes.

Please, elaborate on the differences.
If he's not part of the unit, I can target him separately, yes?
If he's not part of the unit, he doesn't get buffs that are cast on the unit, correct?

In what way is he not part of the unit?
You're attempting to make an irrelevant distinction.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
An IC in a unit is not part of the unit, but he counts as being part of it for all intents and purposes.

Please, elaborate on the differences.
If he's not part of the unit, I can target him separately, yes?
If he's not part of the unit, he doesn't get buffs that are cast on the unit, correct?

In what way is he not part of the unit?
You're attempting to make an irrelevant distinction.

It's not irrelevant. There are a few rules that require the distinction between something being literally x and counting as x.

Hunters from hyperspace would require said distinction because if you treated the IC as counting as being part of the unit for all intents and purposes as "is part of the unit for all intents and purposes" then you would not be able to place a HfH counter on the IC specifically as there is no IC unit on the table.

Counting him as part of the unit, for all intents and purposes, means that the IC's unit still exists but inherits all the permissions and restrictions of him being part of the unit he has joined. This includes not being able to shoot at his unit specifically as it would break the rules of him being counted as part of that unit.

If you shoot at the IC while he is part of a unit, have you counted him as being part of that unit? No.

sonicaucie wrote:
Hunters from hyperspace would require said distinction because if you treated the IC as counting as being part of the unit for all intents and purposes as "is part of the unit for all intents and purposes" then you would not be able to place a HfH counter on the IC specifically as there is no IC unit on the table.

It's almost like HFH has a specific allowance to target an IC and without that allowance it wouldn't work.
Oh - that's exactly how it is.

Counting him as part of the unit, for all intents and purposes, means that the IC's unit still exists but inherits all the permissions and restrictions of him being part of the unit he has joined. This includes not being able to shoot at his unit specifically as it would break the rules of him being counted as part of that unit.

If you shoot at the IC while he is part of a unit, have you counted him as being part of that unit? No.

You still haven't shown a distinction. Literally any attempt to treat the IC as not a member of the larger unit is illegal, as he is part of the larger unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
Hunters from hyperspace would require said distinction because if you treated the IC as counting as being part of the unit for all intents and purposes as "is part of the unit for all intents and purposes" then you would not be able to place a HfH counter on the IC specifically as there is no IC unit on the table.

It's almost like HFH has a specific allowance to target an IC and without that allowance it wouldn't work.
Oh - that's exactly how it is.

Counting him as part of the unit, for all intents and purposes, means that the IC's unit still exists but inherits all the permissions and restrictions of him being part of the unit he has joined. This includes not being able to shoot at his unit specifically as it would break the rules of him being counted as part of that unit.

If you shoot at the IC while he is part of a unit, have you counted him as being part of that unit? No.

You still haven't shown a distinction. Literally any attempt to treat the IC as not a member of the larger unit is illegal, as he is part of the larger unit.

I'm not really sure where we're misunderstanding each other. You're saying the distinction is irrelevant, I'm saying it's not.

My original purpose was to show that "removing from play counts as removing as a casualty" is not the same as "removing from play is removing as a casualty".

Because if you're interpreting it that way, then necron characters get Ever Living against tesseract labyrinth, Jaws and any other effect that states "remove from play".

My point is that when you get a "counts as" statement that you're inheriting permissions and restrictions on top of what you had prior. Being removed as a casualty might trigger an ability or a rule that being removed from play might not. EL being an example. The difference is that remove from play is still in effect and can't supercede the casualty permission.

Even if I'm wrong on this point, I'm unsure about where you're going with this. As even if remove from play counts as remove as a casualty it does not imply that remove as a casualty counts as remove from play.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A.

So despite them counting as new units, in sigvatrs latest claim, they don't count for VPs, even though the units have been wiped out? Interesting way to prove yourself wrong, as inconsistency is a big clue...

Rescuing the unit, and for them the battle is over, are as clear as a bell. Creating a new unit? Not a single rule or FAQ allows for that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Really? So you're placing the EL token to not save the unit? The special rule allowing you to place the token disagrees, "mate".

Perhaps you can quote for me where it mentions that the placing of a token is an attempt to save the unit ? I don't see it anywhere.

I'd also be keen to see what back up you have for suggesting that the prohibition on special rules saving the unit from sweeping advance extends to special rules that do no stop the unit being removed as a casualty but being able to return after the sweeping advance has been affected because as it stands all of the requirements of the sweeping advance have been fulfilled and I don't see how that precludes reanimation.

You're obviously unaware but "mate" is a friendly form of familiar address in my country, if you'd rather I used more caustic terms I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Remember, this is about plastic spacemen, no need to unleash your unsavoury side.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So despite them counting as new units, in sigvatrs latest claim, they don't count for VPs, even though the units have been wiped out? Interesting way to prove yourself wrong, as inconsistency is a big clue...

According to your interpretation of my comment, that far derives from its actual content, anytime a character model would voluntarily leave a unit, the amount of units the army has would increase by 1. Does that sound logical to you?

I truly wonder how many pages total this argument has had over all the threads.

 Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So despite them counting as new units, in sigvatrs latest claim, they don't count for VPs, even though the units have been wiped out? Interesting way to prove yourself wrong, as inconsistency is a big clue...

According to your interpretation of my comment, that far derives from its actual content, anytime a character model would voluntarily leave a unit, the amount of units the army has would increase by 1. Does that sound logical to you?

Yes, because joining the unit decreases your unit count by one.

Fragile wrote:
I truly wonder how many pages total this argument has had over all the threads.

Meh, it's YMDC. As soon as a thread gets more than 2 pages, it usually devolves in circle argumentation, you then get two sides and both sides hate at each other back and forth. Nobody is willing to accept anything the other person says, ad hominem get thrown around, mods step in and ask people to calm down, another user starts it all again, thread gets closed.

You're best off just reading the first pages and if still in doubt, google for the rest.

...and my guess is 21.

The correct answer to the OP is that Everliving does indeed allow for resurrection after being swept because SA not interfering with the EL special rule that is triggered after SA has been resolved.

Correct answer first provided in #3.

Coming back to the topic, if the argument is that "for them the. Battle is over"' do you also mean Trazyn can never come back? Or that St Celestine can never return either?

So Trazyn should be called Trazyn the Once (If Swept) :p

On page 27 they are said to be removed as casualties. This should allow EL to occur.

 milkboy wrote:

On page 27 they are said to be removed as casualties. This should allow EL to occur.

It does indeed and, partially, for this exact reason. The unit / model gets swept and is removed from play as a casualty, nothing and no special rule can stop this. After this point, SA is done. Then, EL kicks in and allows you to place a marker and, at the end of the phase, roll for a chance to come back into play.

I lol'd at "Trazyn the Once".

I just hope the the rumored 7th edition adds clarification to SA in the same way that the rule for destroyer weapons did, so this argument can finally be put to rest.

I guess most people wish for GW to finally release a good, clear set of rules

A new edition, though, isn't a real solution. The underlying problem is that GW needs to update the rules, similar to patches for video games, as new problems usually appear way after releasing a new set of rules or even years afterwards.

So for them the battle isn't over? You've rescued the unit, despite the rules stating this is not possible unless your rule specifies it works, and your rule specifies...nope, no specification there!

Correct raw answer has been given all along, Sigvatr et al are simply ignoring written, clear as anything rules to allow el to operate.

Your wrong interpretation of the rules doesn't get "rightier" the louder you shout / the more often you repeat it. You had your argumentation laid out, it couldn't hold up, that's it.

You are under the impression that after the first SA in a 40k game appears, it and its sub-clasues are valid for the rest of the entire game - which is downright wrong. Obviously.

Just curious, nosferatu and rigeld, do you guys play it that Celestine cannot come back after a sweeping advance?

 milkboy wrote:
Just curious, nosferatu and rigeld, do you guys play it that Celestine cannot come back after a sweeping advance?

I do. Same as Yarrick, and Justicar Thawn.

It's never an issue for Yarrick and Thawn, fearless and ATSKNF sees to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So for them the battle isn't over? You've rescued the unit, despite the rules stating this is not possible unless your rule specifies it works, and your rule specifies...nope, no specification there!

Correct raw answer has been given all along, Sigvatr et al are simply ignoring written, clear as anything rules to allow el to operate.

e's not ignoring anything he simply doesn't share your broad ranging interpretation of "cannot be saved".

I don't see how the unit being removed as casualties, which is what happens here, constitutes being saved from the sweeping advance.
Nor do I see Ever Living as interfering with that when it, as normal, allows the IC to return from the dead.

I've not seen any rules presented that support your case that the cannot be saved clause extends beyond the Sweeping Advance.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
I don't see how the unit being removed as casualties, which is what happens here, constitutes being saved from the sweeping advance.

It's putting them back on the table that saves them, and with them back on the table obviously the battle is not over.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Your wrong interpretation of the rules doesn't get "rightier" the louder you shout / the more often you repeat it. You had your argumentation laid out, it couldn't hold up, that's it.

You are under the impression that after the first SA in a 40k game appears, it and its sub-clasues are valid for the rest of the entire game - which is downright wrong. Obviously.

Lol.

So, "at this stage" being defined as "battle" means you get to bring the unit back at the end if the phase? Because what, necrons are special?

The unit was rescued. For them, the battle is not over. And you did it ALL using a special rule, when specifically told you need explicit statements to allow that to occur.


Your argument has failed since the very begijnnning, and it's just getting worse. Please mark as "hywpi" since you cannot comply with the forum tenets, ever, in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
I don't see how the unit being removed as casualties, which is what happens here, constitutes being saved from the sweeping advance.

It's putting them back on the table that saves them, and with them back on the table obviously the battle is not over.

Even more, it absolutely rescues them - it isn't even a "save" , but rescue that you are prohibited from doing.

This rule is remarkably clear for GW, yet some will still ignore key phrases and pretend they're not there.

 milkboy wrote:
Just curious, nosferatu and rigeld, do you guys play it that Celestine cannot come back after a sweeping advance?

Never come up, but I would.

I'm still waiting for anything other than a personal opinion on what constitutes a unit being saved or rescued.
I'd also be interestedin something that shows that Ever Living stops the unit being removed as casulaties by sweeping advance, which is the actual prohibition. If you can show something that says they can't come back later that would be good.
This would also clarify what happens to a unit that goes into ongoing reserve when it is removed as a casualty or are you saying that can't happen either ?

Rule quotes, there's a good chap.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
I'm still waiting for anything other than a personal opinion on what constitutes a unit being saved or rescued.

Rule quotes, there's a good chap.

I'm still waiting for a rules based definition of the word "a" and "the".
Care to oblige?

So you're admitting there is no rules support for you position ?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
So you're admitting there is no rules support for you position ?

Absolutely not.
Some words we have to use a normal English definition.
If a unit isn't in the game, and then suddenly is, was it saved? What would you call it?

If a unit isn't in the game and then suddenly it is I'd call that resurrection, if it never left the game on the first place I'd call that being saved.

An armour save saves a wound, It will Not Die lets you "regrow" a lost wound, but it isn't saved.

But really the key is not whether it was saved or not but rather saved from what and when.

"It cannot be saved at this stage" reads to me that you cannot be saved from being removed as a casualty by the sweeping advance.

Necron and units that go into ongoing reserve when they are destroyed have the ability to return which in no way saves from them being removed as a casualty by a sweeping advance, in fact both abilities rely on being removed as a casualty.

This all make me wonder about something

Units that are removed as a casualty as per the removed as a casualty explanation on pg15 don't have that little "the battle is over" clause as such they are dead but still part of the game where a unit killed by a sweeping advance does have that. Now in purge the alien Victory Points are the last thing you calculate at the end of the game by calculating units the have been completely destroyed etc. So if a unit is removed from a sweeping advance on turn 3 then that means "The battle is over for this unit". Seeing as the unit ceased to be part of the battle on turn three how can you include it when calculating VP at the end of turn 5,6 or 7?

Note that the words game and battle seem to be used interchangeably throughout the whole rule book.

Hinging a rules interpretation on a few words of hyperbole is a slippery slope indeed.

Stage is , contextually, the rest of the battle, which is the rest of the game.

Found a rules permission to allow your unit to be rescued? You're concentrating on "save" , whistle ignoring other words there.

Your unit was dead, gone. Wiped out. Suddenly the unit is there again. The units was, without a doubt, rescued in some way. Rule broken.

How does "at THIS stage" in a rule about sweeping advance contextually apply to the rest of the battle?
How does "cannot be rescued" in a rule about sweeping advance extend beyond being rescued from the sweeping advance?

The whole issue really comes down to how you interpret the phrases in the descriptor and you really can't say definitely which one is correct, although I am sure you will try to insist your reading is the only one.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
How does "at THIS stage" in a rule about sweeping advance contextually apply to the rest of the battle?

How does "cannot be rescued" in a rule about sweeping advance extend beyond being rescued from the sweeping advance?

"For them the BATTLE Is over ".

So stage is linked to battle. Hmm, I wonder what that gives as a context....

Otherwise, page and para as to exactly what that stage is, if you're going to. Ignore half the sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Your wrong interpretation of the rules doesn't get "rightier" the louder you shout / the more often you repeat it. You had your argumentation laid out, it couldn't hold up, that's it.

You are under the impression that after the first SA in a 40k game appears, it and its sub-clasues are valid for the rest of the entire game - which is downright wrong. Obviously.

Lol.

So, "at this stage" being defined as "battle" means you get to bring the unit back at the end if the phase? Because what, necrons are special?

The unit was rescued. For them, the battle is not over. And you did it ALL using a special rule, when specifically told you need explicit statements to allow that to occur.


Your argument has failed since the very begijnnning, and it's just getting worse. Please mark as "hywpi" since you cannot comply with the forum tenets, ever, in this thread.

Since....3 or 4 pages, you have done absolutely nothing instead of repeating the same, wrong, stuff over and over again, admitting to a lack of general knowledge of basic rules and to bend the rules as much and as hard as you could to somehow justify your wrong interpretation of the rules. The exact RAW definition of this problem, as in SA never conflicting with EL due to EL not saving a unit from being destroyed, has been given over and over again.

It's really simple. Does EL save the unit from being destroyed? No. The unit is removed from play. It says so right there. Do the rules therefore conflict? No.

Could you please start your posts with a [HYWPI]? It would make understanding actual rules a lot easier for others reading your posts. Thanks in advance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
How does "at THIS stage" in a rule about sweeping advance contextually apply to the rest of the battle?

How does "cannot be rescued" in a rule about sweeping advance extend beyond being rescued from the sweeping advance?

"For them the BATTLE Is over ".

So stage is linked to battle. Hmm, I wonder what that gives as a context....

Otherwise, page and para as to exactly what that stage is, if you're going to. Ignore half the sentence.

"For them the battle is over" ? which battle? The battle in general or the close combat battle that has now been concluded with the sweeping advance?

I wonder how the majority of players interpret it. Perhaps this is the time for a poll.

 milkboy wrote:
I wonder how the majority of players interpret it. Perhaps this is the time for a poll.

Do put up one if you wish. I'll keep interpreting it as it has been interpreted since the previous Necron codex with We'll Be Back, which was even given as an example of special rules unable to help against SA in the 4th rulebook. Swept = not coming back.

Celestine could conceivably be swept too, but you need to remove her Fearless first and then hit her hard enough.

The current WBB rule, as in RP, still specifically mentions the unit not coming back after being swept

Everliving is a new rule that works differently, that's the reason for the confusion.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
How does "at THIS stage" in a rule about sweeping advance contextually apply to the rest of the battle?

How does "cannot be rescued" in a rule about sweeping advance extend beyond being rescued from the sweeping advance?

"For them the BATTLE Is over ".

So stage is linked to battle. Hmm, I wonder what that gives as a context....

Otherwise, page and para as to exactly what that stage is, if you're going to. Ignore half the sentence.

"For them the battle is over" ? which battle? The battle in general or the close combat battle that has now been concluded with the sweeping advance?

No offense but when you have to resort to logic like this to support your stance, you are truly grasping.

My biggest contention with the pro-EL stance is there has not been a convincing argument as to why EL gets to ignore the statement in the SA rule about the battle being over for the victim. Does EL work against destroyer weapons? No, it does not, but here still the model is removed as a casualty, so just because EL works when removed as a casualty in general doesn't automatically override rules that make specific exceptions like SA.

Have a read of the rules for frag grenades mate, the bit where they talk about an assault being a battle.

As for weakness of argument it isn't me who says descriptive text overides rules.

Hardly what I would call conclusive.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Have a read of the rules for frag grenades mate, the bit where they talk about an assault being a battle.

As for weakness of argument it isn't me who says descriptive text overides rules.

And the whole game is defined as a battle.

It's part of the rules text. You're the one ignoring "at this stage" meaning "rest of game", as it is the whole battle.

Sig - nope, up you have rescued the unit, as the unit was removed, and now it isn't. EL is a model,not unit based rule. Your inability to distinguish the toe is telling.

I assume you still won't apologise for the lies or accusations of bias as I apparently dislike necrons? Or does that not count?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Have a read of the rules for frag grenades mate, the bit where they talk about an assault being a battle.

As for weakness of argument it isn't me who says descriptive text overides rules.

And the whole game is defined as a battle.

It's part of the rules text. You're the one ignoring "at this stage" meaning "rest of game", as it is the whole battle.

I'm not ignoring anything I'm saying your position is an unsubstantiated assumption of the meaning of "battle"."
You're also saying "at this stage" refers to an undefined remainder when by basic English "at this stage" refers to a discreet moment in time. "at any stage" or "at any future stage" would be the terms that might refer to the rest of the game.

From Page 61 :
"Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous frag grenade, can be
hurled at the enemy as your warriors charge into battle. The
lethal storm of shrapnel from these grenades drives opponents
further under cover for a few precious moments, allowing
attackers more time to close in and, hopefully, get the first blow
in against a disoriented foe."

Clearly in this case "battle" refers to a close combat, clearly "battle" doesn't always mean the entire game, sometimes it can refer to the assault phase, including the sweeping advance portion of it.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Have a read of the rules for frag grenades mate, the bit where they talk about an assault being a battle.

As for weakness of argument it isn't me who says descriptive text overides rules.

And the whole game is defined as a battle.

It's part of the rules text. You're the one ignoring "at this stage" meaning "rest of game", as it is the whole battle.

I'm not ignoring anything I'm saying your position is an unsubstantiated assumption of the meaning of "battle"."
You're also saying "at this stage" refers to an undefined remainder when by basic English "at this stage" refers to a discreet moment in time. "at any stage" or "at any future stage" would be the terms that might refer to the rest of the game.

From Page 61 :
"Assault grenades, like the ubiquitous frag grenade, can be
hurled at the enemy as your warriors charge into battle. The
lethal storm of shrapnel from these grenades drives opponents
further under cover for a few precious moments, allowing
attackers more time to close in and, hopefully, get the first blow
in against a disoriented foe."

Clearly in this case "battle" refers to a close combat, clearly "battle" doesn't always mean the entire game, sometimes it can refer to the assault phase, including the sweeping advance portion of it.

This is a case of "fluff is not RaW".
Unless you are assuming frag grenades give the enemy +1 to cover, the "Always strike first" rule and you can actually throw stones at your opponent's models for the "can be
hurled at the enemy" part?

It's been a long time since any RAW was mentioned in this discussion.

Odd, Ive been discussing RAW all along. I;m not ignoring the "no special rule" part, ignoring the word "rescue" - or considering that a unit being returned is SOMEHOW *not* rescuing the unit, which is a bizarre interpretation - or that "for them, the battle is over" isnt a pretty damn clear instruction on what the unit is allowed to do for the rest of the battle - absolutely nothing.

Unless like Sigvatr you are claiming that an EL model returnign is somehow a new unit?

No just that Ever Living returning a model from the dead breaks none of the prohibitions of the Sweeping Advance rule.

Returning from the dead isn't rescuing the unit from the sweeping advance. The unit is still removed as casualties by the advance and the combat (battle if you will) is over.

You've chosen to ignore the caveat of "at this stage" and what is bizarre is the ongoing insistence that "at this stage" means "rest of the game" rather than "at this particular point in time" which is what "at this stage" means.

"Are you going to the concert Bob?"
"Not at this stage Ken"

Doesn't mean that Bob is absolutely not going to the concert, there is nothing absolute about "at this stage" beyond what is happening now.

Apart from that UNIT taking any further part in the battle, battle defined as the game using rules, not the fluff you keep thinking is relevant.

Your bizarre ruleless argument is done. Please mark as HYPWI, as you cannot actually cite relevant rules, just an ongoing ignorance of them.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
No just that Ever Living returning a model from the dead breaks none of the prohibitions of the Sweeping Advance rule.

Returning from the dead isn't rescuing the unit from the sweeping advance. The unit is still removed as casualties by the advance and the combat (battle if you will) is over.

You've chosen to ignore the caveat of "at this stage" and what is bizarre is the ongoing insistence that "at this stage" means "rest of the game" rather than "at this particular point in time" which is what "at this stage" means.

"Are you going to the concert Bob?"
"Not at this stage Ken"

Doesn't mean that Bob is absolutely not going to the concert, there is nothing absolute about "at this stage" beyond what is happening now.

At this stage (point) nothing can save them. Another point (stage)? Sure! As long as they have a rule allowing it - one which, you know, specifies it can come back from SA.
At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

So basically, after the first SA in a game, it is impossible to use any ability that revives a model because "at this stage" clearly lasts until the end of the game?

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

No it doesn't it means "at this stage" it makes no reference to any other stage it has no qualifier for changing or reference to the future.

The unit has been swept and at this stage nothing can prevent that , but only at this stage, it in no way precludes something happening at some other stage, like for example the end of the phase when you make your EL roll.

Gravmyr wrote:
I have seen and taken part in this discussion a number of times.... In the end each side has a non-concrete stance. My local group as looked at all the rules and we play it that swept EL models do not place a token but model that died in combat still can use their EL.

What is the book's definition of Destroyed? The only answer I can find is that the models are removed as casualties.

Before anyone starts calling anyone a cheater ask yourself if you move drop pods 1" away from enemy models when inertial guidance is triggered. If you answer yes you are using a RAI not RAW interpretation which is what many players of Necrons believe they are doing when using EL to return a destroyed model to play.

Can someone give me a page for the specific rule over riding general rules rule from the BRB? I see it quoted as gospel in virtually every thread yet I do not remember anyone backing it up with a page number. Is it a continued convention from the past or is there an actual rule backing up this stance?

Why has no one compared 5th and 6th edition BRBs? Necrons are from 5th ed era.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

So basically, after the first SA in a game, it is impossible to use any ability that revives a model because "at this stage" clearly lasts until the end of the game?

For THAT unit, yes. Or are you ignoring context as we'll as the other rules you've ignored / made up?

For the rest of the battle, the unit cannot take further part in it. Why do you ignore this? Or are you still making the absurd claim that the EL model is a new unit?

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

No it doesn't it means "at this stage" it makes no reference to any other stage it has no qualifier for changing or reference to the future.

The unit has been swept and at this stage nothing can prevent that , but only at this stage, it in no way precludes something happening at some other stage, like for example the end of the phase when you make your EL roll.

Pray, how do you know this stage is over?
At this stage, I'm not going to the concert.
If I end up going to the concert, obviously something changed, yes? Cite permission to "move on" to another stage in the rules. EL doesn't allow that as SA has said no special rule can save or rescue the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

So basically, after the first SA in a game, it is impossible to use any ability that revives a model because "at this stage" clearly lasts until the end of the game?

For the unit that was destroyed, yes. Unless you're trying to straw-man me and I'm just not following.

Given sigvatrs past posts on this topic, straw-manning seems likely. They've failed with any rules quotes since being proven wrong about 4 pages ago.

I would also like to point out that grammatically, they emphasize on the "battle is over" part:

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

The semi-colon is relatively important in describing the phrase that comes before it (and one could say, what comes after it is more important)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It's been a long time since any RAW was mentioned in this discussion.

Also if we wanted to go into fluff or hywpi, then consider the first part of the paragraph:

"We assume(...) is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart, or otherwise sent packing(...): its members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding."

So yes, i would completely agree that a Necron with EL is alive and well: he's got chains on his hand and is now fully in custody. If you would insist he is able to fight, i'd even say he is: I'll control him

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

/e: Okay, screw this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533174.page

I asked you to stop the trolling, and you're doing the exact same thing, again, asking questions you already know the answer to and even answered in this very forum. Go troll someone else, thanks. Bye.

It's a valid debate tactic to prove to you why your assertions were wrong.
It's more adult to admit you were wrong than to call me a troll when I demonstrably wasn't.

If repeating something long enough caused others to give up and made you feel like a winner then congratulations to you, it worked again.

I don't understand the objection?
Have you reported anything you feel I'm being rude about?
Have I done anything untoward?

Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Naw wrote:
Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

It's not simply repetition. I've cited my sources and explained my reasoning. And, as to the situation you quoted me during, asking a leading question is absolutely a valid form of arguing.

I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

Can anyone give a GW definition of battle?
How about a GW definition of save?
How about a GW definition of stages?

There is no way we can continue in an intelligent way until those key terms are defined in game. If we can't actually use outside experience/logic then we can't use the language that is based off of it. There is no way to continue till we can at least start with a common base.

Comparing EL to ATSKNF is what convinces me of a particular RAW.

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

ATSKNF: "If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a SA, they are not destroyed, but remain locked...."

Note that ATSKNF specifies in its own entry that it works against SA, which is exactly what SA demands for there to be an exception.

Ever-Living: "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a RP counter to its unit. Instead, place an EL counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a RP counter."

Note that EL does not specify that it works against SA, therefore not fulfilling the requirements to be "rescued."

Fluffily, it works much better this way than any other way. As the Bloodletters Sweep away the Necrons, they stamp their cloven hooves and sharp talons into the metal bones of the machine-men, grinding out any last sparks of electric life. A Herald even captures the head of the Necron Overlord in his Sweeping Advance, preventing it from rising again.

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

It does not matter as those models cannot be saved, e.g. brought back by any special rule. Their stage is that they have been removed from play (as casualties).

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

It does not matter as those models cannot be saved, e.g. brought back by any special rule. Their stage is that they have been removed from play (as casualties).

I underlined where you agreed with me.
Until another stage, they cannot be brought back by any special rule.

Naw wrote:
Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

It's a usual mean when you run out of arguments and just want to debate it for the argument's sake not for the topic at hand. Both sides have stated their respective arguments and won't move a single inch towards the other's stance - and some like to participate in circle discussions. In real life, people sometimes just want to hear themselves talking.

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

It does not matter as those models cannot be saved, e.g. brought back by any special rule. Their stage is that they have been removed from play (as casualties).

Precisely. There's only two possibilities to understand the end of the SA rule (the "saving part"):

a) It ends after SA ends, which means that anything that happens after SA is no longer subject to what SA said. EL is valid.

b) It does not end when SA ends. After the first SA happens, the "model cannot be saved" rule is valid for the entire rest of the game, meaning no model may ever come back for any reason until the end of the game. EL is therefore disallowed.

It's up to you which one you choose. It's also clear which one makes sense.

Hint: the former.

The key to understand the rule is to understand the "saving" part. The question is whether EL saves a unit / model from being swept. The correct answer is: no. Any model, even those with EL, get swept. No chance to be saved from it, they get swept. End of the story. EL happens after SA and that is precisely why the rules do not conflict. Any discussion about whether EL saved the unit in a broader context, the way regi and nosferatu argue it, is their personal interpretation of the word and, to be precise, HT(Y)WPI. If we really have an exact RAW-look at it and stick to the SA rules, then it's clear that "save" can only be used in context of the rule itself and if we do stay in this boundary, meaning the rule's actual written definition, then save only refers to being saved from being removed as a casualty. As this is not what actually happens, it's clear that you may of course use EL after having been swept in melee, given you can place the model somewhere in 3''.

Got through about 3 pafes of this, and every argument against EL after a sweeping advance is based on a faulty premise.

Ever Living and RP are repeatedly referred to as Saves. They are not Saves.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Naw wrote:
Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

It's a usual mean when you run out of arguments and just want to debate it for the argument's sake not for the topic at hand. Both sides have stated their respective arguments and won't move a single inch towards the other's stance - and some like to participate in circle discussions. In real life, people sometimes just want to hear themselves talking.

That's pretty insulting. I have not run out of arguments.

Precisely. There's only two possibilities to understand the end of the SA rule (the "saving part"):

a) It ends after SA ends, which means that anything that happens after SA is no longer subject to what SA said. EL is valid.

b) It does not end when SA ends. After the first SA happens, the "model cannot be saved" rule is valid for the entire rest of the game, meaning no model may ever come back for any reason until the end of the game. EL is therefore disallowed.

No, this is a straw man, and an incorrect quote - again. Please try to correctly quote rules.
The *unit* cannot be saved. The unit that was swept. Not any other unit - just that one.

It's up to you which one you choose. It's also clear which one makes sense.

Hint: the former.

I can be inflammatory too!
<tag>There's two possibilities:

1) It ends after SA ends, which means that EL is valid. This is the one that only Necron players and people who like to disagree because they're contrary pick.
2) For that unit, the battle is over.

It's up to you which one you choose. It's also clear which one is the actual rules and which is just Necron players pretending they're cool.</tag>

Hint: Everything between the tags was sarcasm. Asking questions to get someone to think down a specific track - even if you know the answer already - is a perfectly valid method to have a discussion with, and in fact is a good way to teach as well. Accusations of trolling, accusations of stubborness and refusal to listen, accusations of enjoying talking in circles, however, are not good debate practice.

The key to understand the rule is to understand the "saving" part. The question is whether EL saves a unit / model from being swept. The correct answer is: no. Any model, even those with EL, get swept. No chance to be saved from it, they get swept. End of the story. EL happens after SA and that is precisely why the rules do not conflict. Any discussion about whether EL saved the unit in a broader context, the way regi and nosferatu argue it, is their personal interpretation of the word and, to be precise, HT(Y)WPI. If we really have an exact RAW-look at it and stick to the SA rules, then it's clear that "save" can only be used in context of the rule itself and if we do stay in this boundary, meaning the rule's actual written definition, then save only refers to being saved from being removed as a casualty. As this is not what actually happens, it's clear that you may of course use EL after having been swept in melee, given you can place the model somewhere in 3''.

Since you edited...
The underlined is incorrect. If a unit is removed from the board, and then is placed back on the board, has it been saved? Simple question. I'll repeat it until it's answered.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Ever Living and RP are repeatedly referred to as Saves. They are not Saves.

Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Asking questions to get someone to think down a specific track - even if you know the answer already - is a perfectly valid method to have a discussion with, and in fact is a good way to teach as well. Accusations of trolling, accusations of stubborness and refusal to listen, accusations of enjoying talking in circles, however, are not good debate practice.

It's a useful mean if you're interested in letting someone share your knowledge without directly confronting him. If only used to mock others or demonstrate perceived superiority, especially after having been asked to lay it off, however, is nothing but rude behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

If a unit is removed from the board, and then is placed back on the board, has it been saved? Simple question. I'll repeat it until it's answered.

Has already been answered in the exact same post, actually just a few lines below.

/e: Actually, it's the next line -__________-

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Asking questions to get someone to think down a specific track - even if you know the answer already - is a perfectly valid method to have a discussion with, and in fact is a good way to teach as well. Accusations of trolling, accusations of stubborness and refusal to listen, accusations of enjoying talking in circles, however, are not good debate practice.

It's a useful mean if you're interested in letting someone share your knowledge without directly confronting him. If only used to mock others or demonstrate perceived superiority, especially after having been asked to lay it off, however, is nothing but rude behavior.

I'm not directly confronting you. I'm not mocking you. I'm not attempting to demonstrate any kind of superiority.
I never have. Your initial reaction to my questions was an (unfair) accusation of trolling.

It's been a misunderstanding then, thanks for clearing it up.

I'd have simply appreciated you stopping to do so after having been asked to by myself. Everything until that point wasn't bad, but continuing to do so after I asked you to stop doing so was just rude.

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

The big difference is the understanding of "save".

a) "save" only refers to the SA rule and its mention there -> this means that anything that happens after SA is no longer affected by SA and its sub-clauses

b) "save" is your own definition of everything which means that you don't completely lose a unit for the rest of the game

Narrow, rule-fixed definition vs. broad, common speech definition.

Doesn't the codex say that in order to take a RP roll at least one member of the unit must be alive? I don't see any such clause for EL. Therefore, I say that if a squad of warriors joined by Imotekh gets nailed by a SA, then the squad dies, but Imotekh (provided he makes his roll) would survive and be placed back in combat. Seems pretty straightforward to me. RP is treated as a separate rule to EL. While I understand that this goes against what the BRB says, it is a special rule to the Necrons and I'm told that trumps the book and is treated as a special case. I feel it was written as a way to make your lords harder to kill because they (according to fluff) were built much better than cruddy warriors.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

Assume I shoot a squad of Warriors (with attached Cryptek) and kill the whole unit. The Cryptek passes his EL roll (obviously he gets one in this case). Is the Cryptek scoring? Why or why not? Can the Cryptek be targeted by a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge special rule? Why or why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
Doesn't the codex say that in order to take a RP roll at least one member of the unit must be alive? I don't see any such clause for EL. Therefore, I say that if a squad of warriors joined by Imotekh gets nailed by a SA, then the squad dies, but Imotekh (provided he makes his roll) would survive and be placed back in combat. Seems pretty straightforward to me. RP is treated as a separate rule to EL. While I understand that this goes against what the BRB says, it is a special rule to the Necrons and I'm told that trumps the book and is treated as a special case. I feel it was written as a way to make your lords harder to kill because they (according to fluff) were built much better than cruddy warriors.

Codex trumps BRB when there is a conflict. There is no conflict between the two. If EL said it worked against SA, there would be a conflict, and EL would win.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Incorrect. RP is for models. EL is for different models. Units contain models. When a unit is destroyed (as in SA) all models in that unit are destroyed.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

He's the same unit he already was, yes?

If you're technically dead, but a doctor brings you back to life, have you been saved?

 Happyjew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

Assume I shoot a squad of Warriors (with attached Cryptek) and kill the whole unit. The Cryptek passes his EL roll (obviously he gets one in this case). Is the Cryptek scoring? Why or why not? Can the Cryptek be targeted by a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge special rule? Why or why not?

Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

Assume I shoot a squad of Warriors (with attached Cryptek) and kill the whole unit. The Cryptek passes his EL roll (obviously he gets one in this case). Is the Cryptek scoring? Why or why not? Can the Cryptek be targeted by a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge special rule? Why or why not?

Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

If I kill the Cryptek later, do I get 1 or 2 VPs (assumiong PtA)? Would I get a Pain Token for killing the Warriro unit?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's been a misunderstanding then, thanks for clearing it up.

I'd appreciate, but don't expect, an apology for your accusations.

I'd have simply appreciated you stopping to do so after having been asked to by myself. Everything until that point wasn't bad, but continuing to do so after I asked you to stop doing so was just rude.

It was (and is) the easiest way to prove my point.
And in actuality, you asked me to "stop the trolling" in your own words, which I wasn't doing.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591662.page#6764635
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/591662.page#6764768

And after you accused me of trolling, I did find a way to put my argument forward without asking questions. I've been nothing but polite to you this entire conversation and have received scorn, mocking, and accusations of trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

This is wholly incorrect.
He has no permission to create a new unit - he's a member of the same unit he already was.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Incorrect. RP is for models. EL is for different models. Units contain models. When a unit is destroyed (as in SA) all models in that unit are destroyed.

Right...the codex clearly explains that when a unit is destroyed, it cannot make Reanimation Protocol rolls. Ever Living works the same way pretty much, but for 1 model and without the caveat that it won't work if the entire unit is destroyed.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

rigeld2 wrote:
He's the same unit he already was, yes?

If you're technically dead, but a doctor brings you back to life, have you been saved?

Dude, just read the codex. It's all spelled out right there. You'd be cheating [i[not[/i] to take the Ever Living roll.

I've read the codex. You've apparently not read the thread where I've corrected others on how the rule is worded.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

This is wholly incorrect.
He has no permission to create a new unit - he's a member of the same unit he already was.

So what you're saying is, by virtue of joining a unit, the Cryptek loses his Ever Living special rule.

Please point me to where this is spelled out in the BRB or the Codex.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

This is wholly incorrect.
He has no permission to create a new unit - he's a member of the same unit he already was.

So what you're saying is, by virtue of joining a unit, the Cryptek loses his Ever Living special rule.

Please point me to where this is spelled out in the BRB or the Codex.

No, I've never said that. EL is a model based rule, as is RP. What leads you to believe I've said he loses EL?

Because Ever Living gives him the ability to reanimate at the end of the Assault Phase, and has nothing to do with whether he's a part of a unit or not.

Again, if you can point to anything that states that the Cryptek loses his Ever Living by joining a unit, I'll look at it with a very open mind.

 jasper76 wrote:
Because Ever Living gives him the ability to reanimate at the end of the Assault Phase, and has nothing to do with whether he's a part of a unit or not.

...
Let's start over, because you're so far from my argument I don't even know where you're at anymore.

For one: I agree completely with the quoted statement. I'd like to also say that even as a single model, he's a unit.