time wizard wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: no where does it say this token is part of the unit. this counter this object we are referring to as a RP/or EL token.

The token represents a model that is part of the unit.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:the removed model put a lasting effect on his unit even though that model no longer exists. this is only due to the faq.

Let me see if I get this. I have a 10 man warrior squad with an attached overseer. In the shooting phase the overseer and 4 warriors are 'killed'. The all get to roll no 4+ for RP and EL because the overseer has a res orb. The overseer fails his roll and is removed, but all 4 warriors make it.
In the assault phase 5 warriors get killed. They now get to use the res orb for the RP roll because accoring to you the removed model put a lasting effect on the unit? So the res orb sorks for the entire game, even long after the character with the orb has been removed? Really?.

that phase boss. that phase read the faq even though i posted it here it is again

Q: If a model carrying a resurrection orb is removed as
a casualty, can you still benefit from it when rolling for
his, and his unit’s, Reanimation Protocol rolls that
phase? (p82)
A: Yes."

hey would you look at that

so the first part in the shooting is correct, the second i think is trollling





Automatically Appended Next Post:
ooooh page 21

Are you missing the reference to "his unit"? If he's not a part of the unit when he's "tokenized", then "his unit" is a null reference. He has to be part of "his unit" when tokenized.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:First, Jaws because its easier. Jaws does target the first unit in the line but it does not target the rest of the units of models who happen to be along that line. Additionally, for fun Dangerous Terrain. Your move holy man.

First, you can drop the sarcastic insults. I haven't thrown any your way. Thanks.

Fair enough for that example. It's irrelevant to my point, however - you cannot bring a model back without addressing the fact that the unit is being rescued. Unless you want to assert that a new unit is created, but that way lies madness.

Second, Your idomatic example is flawed and more proof of my point then yours. The word that allows the ongoing effect is not "At this point" it is "Start". With out the word Start : "my account will accrue overdraft charges at this point." Now you have a reference of one overdraft charge or charges without an ongoing effect happening at that moment. Again, the wording of SA does not lend itself to your idomatic reading.

Erm. No. "My account will accrue overdraft charges at this point." That is absolutely an ongoing reference by any common sense reading - without intervention, it will not stop.
"No save or special rule can rescue the unit at this [point]." is an absolute reference to an ongoing state - you can't intervene "unless otherwise specified"
The ball is rolling at this point. Your assertion is that the ball has stopped rolling an instant after it was declared rolling.
The shuttle was in space at this point. Your assertion is that the shuttle plummeted down to the ground after that point.

Actually it wasn't an insult, quite the opposite, its a quote by Dane Cook that I made in jest. Apologies, if you feel that I was actually insulting you.
And again no it speaks of this point in time it does not speak to the future. Any inferences that you draw about the future are your own.
All it says it right at this moment I cannot stop the overdraft charges. Not that they cannot be stopped going forward or that further overdraft charges will be added.
Much the same that SA references the here and now and nothing can stop it from happening in the here and now.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:The EL rules are very clear about what portion(s) of the RP rules you are supposed to use.

Agreed.
All of them, unless specified otherwise. Since EL is done "just as" RP.

Absolutely not. It's not that as you say, "EL is done "just as" RP. It's that EL rolls are done just as RP ones. A EL model that was part of a unit before it was removed as a casualty is, "returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols.". That's it. EL uses no other part of the RP rules. There is absolutely no statement in the EL rule mechanic or Necron FAQ that says you treat EL exactly like RP. The above are the only ways that EL is like RP. You even place the EL counter differently than you do the RP one.

RP: Place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit...
EL: Place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play.

kirsanth wrote:Not "Here are the ways it is the same".

But do it just as that, but here are differences.

This is one of those very few times where I would say that you are dead wrong on this particular point.

-Yad

he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Ever-Living:
"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. . .as explained in Reanimation Protocols."

Reanimation Protocols:
"Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit is destroyed, once the last model has been removed, remove all your counters from the unit."
It does not say remove all your Reanimation Protocols counters.
And SA immediately destroys the unit.

You're leaving out some important points there. I hope you're not doing it on purpose.

Which ones are relevant? Because otherwise it is silly this went to page 2.

Or are you also assuming that having something be "just as" does not mean what we think it means in other applications of 40k?
Or perhaps you are thinking "moves as", "counts as", "done as", et al are each 100% unrelated in effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Read IC rules. He is again part of the unit during resolution.

Icemyn wrote:Actually it wasn't an insult, quite the opposite, its a quote by Dane Cook that I made in jest. Apologize if you feel that I was actually insulting you.
And again no it speaks of this point in time it does not speak to the future. Any inferences that you draw about the future are your own.
All it says it right at this moment I cannot stop the overdraft charges. Not that they cannot be stopped going forward or that further overdraft charges will be added.

Ah. I don't listen to Dane Cook, so that's why I misunderstood. It's all good.
So the ball isn't rolling? Or are you saying there's no guarantee that it is rolling - only that it was at that point.
Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

Intervention is required to stop the ball/knock down the shuttle/stop the overdrafts/rescue the unit. SA requires a specific override to rescue the unit. Similar to if my bank required a deposit in person to stop the overdrafts - I can deposit at ATMs all I want, but that will not stop the overdrafts.
You can do whatever you want, but without a specific allowance to come back from SA, the unit is destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

If I was ever going to create a signature this would be it.

-Yad

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Does it say "his old unit"? Does it say "the unit he used to be a part of"? No, it says "his unit" which is a present tense.

If an IC with an orb leaves his unit in the movement phase, and his unit goes on to take some dangerous terrain tests, your interpretation would mean that any RP rolls that happen because of the DT would be at 4+ - because the orb was a member of the unit, but isn't at the point the orb was rolled.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Actually it wasn't an insult, quite the opposite, its a quote by Dane Cook that I made in jest. Apologize if you feel that I was actually insulting you.
And again no it speaks of this point in time it does not speak to the future. Any inferences that you draw about the future are your own.
All it says it right at this moment I cannot stop the overdraft charges. Not that they cannot be stopped going forward or that further overdraft charges will be added.

Ah. I don't listen to Dane Cook, so that's why I misunderstood. It's all good.
So the ball isn't rolling? Or are you saying there's no guarantee that it is rolling - only that it was at that point.
Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

Intervention is required to stop the ball/knock down the shuttle/stop the overdrafts/rescue the unit. SA requires a specific override to rescue the unit. Similar to if my bank required a deposit in person to stop the overdrafts - I can deposit at ATMs all I want, but that will not stop the overdrafts.
You can do whatever you want, but without a specific allowance to come back from SA, the unit is destroyed.

Again it is in that instant it cannot be stopped. Nothing in the rule or your example precludes the effect being acted upon in the future.
Your example: I am taking overdraft charges at this moment nothing I can do to stop it. I can stop it later by adding money to my account.
SA: I am being destroyed at this moment nothing I can do about it, I cannot stop it right now. I can come back later by making an EL roll.

I am not arguing interference can stop it. That is infact my entire point. But I am interfering with the result of the SA not SA itself.
IE I am putting the flames out not stopping the fire from starting.

SA is fully and completely resolved well prior to the roll for EL. EL does not stop SA and SA does not stop EL.
Though I do love the Schrödinger reference.

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Does it say "his old unit"? Does it say "the unit he used to be a part of"? No, it says "his unit" which is a present tense.

If an IC with an orb leaves his unit in the movement phase, and his unit goes on to take some dangerous terrain tests, your interpretation would mean that any RP rolls that happen because of the DT would be at 4+ - because the orb was a member of the unit, but isn't at the point the orb was rolled.

Trolololol lol

so this
Q: If a model carrying a resurrection orb is removed as
a casualty, can you still benefit from it when rolling for
his, and his unit’s, Reanimation Protocol rolls that
phase? (p82)
A: Yes."

means that if he was part of the unit during the movement phase and kicked over a bomb (dangerous terrain test) and died, then yes the rest of the unit would still benefit till

A)he gets back up so they still benefit
B)does not get back up and the benefit ends

this is because this is at the end of the phase and all.

but if he leaves his unit by walking away and then they take DT tests then no they do not benefit.

Now lets say the cron lord dies and is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase. That model now has no effect on the game. But wait theres more due to the fact he had a res orb and there is a faq about it. now he does effect his "parent unit" even though he at this point in the game is no longer on the table.

and a due to RP/el rules he comes back from off the table back on to the table back with his parent unit, if applicable if not see

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.

Icemyn wrote:Again it is in that instant it cannot be stopped. Nothing in the rule or your example precludes the effect being acted upon in the future.
Your example: I am taking overdraft charges at this moment nothing I can do to stop it. I can stop it later by adding money to my account.

You're forgetting the qualifier - intervening requires an in person deposit. Depositing at an ATM or transferring money online will not suffice.

SA: I am being destroyed at this moment nothing I can do about it, I cannot stop it right now. I can come back later by making an EL roll.

You're forgetting the qualifier - unless otherwise specified you cannot come back later.

I am not arguing interference can stop it. That is infact my entire point. But I am interfering with the result of the SA not SA itself.
IE I am putting the flames out not stopping the fire from starting.

You're changing the state from destroyed to undestroyed (or, rescued). Unless otherwise specified you cannot.

SA is fully and completely resolved well prior to the roll for EL. EL does not stop SA and SA does not stop EL.

SA is an ongoing effect, just like an overdraft in my bank account, the space shuttle being in space, and a rolling ball. To intervene in any of those, or to change the state, each one has different qualifiers. SA requires a specific allowance.

Though I do love the Schrödinger reference.

Yay - my attempt to inject humor worked and didn't piss anyone off!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Does it say "his old unit"? Does it say "the unit he used to be a part of"? No, it says "his unit" which is a present tense.

If an IC with an orb leaves his unit in the movement phase, and his unit goes on to take some dangerous terrain tests, your interpretation would mean that any RP rolls that happen because of the DT would be at 4+ - because the orb was a member of the unit, but isn't at the point the orb was rolled.

Trolololol lol

Actually no - and I'm pretty insulted by that insinuation.

means that if he was part of the unit during the movement phase and kicked over a bomb (dangerous terrain test) and died, then yes the rest of the unit would still benefit till

A)he gets back up so they still benefit
B)does not get back up and the benefit ends

this is because this is at the end of the phase and all.

Right. Because they're still his unit. Because the orb only works on him and his unit (not his old unit, or the unit he used to be a member of).

but if he leaves his unit by walking away and then they take DT tests then no they do not benefit.

But he was a member of the unit - and by your interpretation, that's enough. Because he was a member of the unit, they get the 4+ roll.

Now lets say the cron lord dies and is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase. That model now has no effect on the game. But wait theres more due to the fact he had a res orb and there is a faq about it. now he does effect his "parent unit" even though he at this point in the game is no longer on the table.

Parent unit? Can you cite a rule referring to that?
Models off the board can absolutely have an effect on the game, both wargear and abilities.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Again it is in that instant it cannot be stopped. Nothing in the rule or your example precludes the effect being acted upon in the future.
Your example: I am taking overdraft charges at this moment nothing I can do to stop it. I can stop it later by adding money to my account.

You're forgetting the qualifier - intervening requires an in person deposit. Depositing at an ATM or transferring money online will not suffice.

SA: I am being destroyed at this moment nothing I can do about it, I cannot stop it right now. I can come back later by making an EL roll.

You're forgetting the qualifier - unless otherwise specified you cannot come back later.

I am not arguing interference can stop it. That is infact my entire point. But I am interfering with the result of the SA not SA itself.
IE I am putting the flames out not stopping the fire from starting.

You're changing the state from destroyed to undestroyed (or, rescued). Unless otherwise specified you cannot.

SA is fully and completely resolved well prior to the roll for EL. EL does not stop SA and SA does not stop EL.

SA is an ongoing effect, just like an overdraft in my bank account, the space shuttle being in space, and a rolling ball. To intervene in any of those, or to change the state, each one has different qualifiers. SA requires a specific allowance.

Though I do love the Schrödinger reference.

Yay - my attempt to inject humor worked and didn't piss anyone off!

A) I dont see how they wouldn't suffice, but I dont think its relelvant anyway. I can think of many ways off hand that would qualify.
B) EL allows me to come back later thus specified.
C) See B. EL allows me to become undestroyed, By rolling the die and putting the model on the table the unit is undestroyed.
D) SA is not an ongoing effect. None of this talk of qualifiers shows how it is in any way.

SA requires a specific allowance to stop it at the instant it resolves. At no other time is there such a requirement.

Though I get the feeling we can argue this forever without a consensus.
Still that is the Idiomatic reading. The literal meaning the RAW does not mean ongoing.
I see no reason to not read this literally.

Icemyn wrote:
A) I dont see how they wouldn't suffice, but I dont think its relelvant anyway. I can think of many ways off hand that would qualify.
B) EL allows me to come back later thus specified.
C) See B. EL allows me to become undestroyed, By rolling the die and putting the model on the table the unit is undestroyed.
D) SA is not an ongoing effect. None of this talk of qualifiers shows how it is in any way.

A, whatever.
B, is an assumption, at best and misleading at worst. SA is never specified.
C, See B.
D, Even if correct, it is an immediate effect, and EL cannot be applied after it is done, especially since it uses RP rules which state that counters are removed.

edits

Icemyn wrote:A) I dont see how they wouldn't suffice, but I dont think its relelvant anyway. I can think of many ways off hand that would qualify.
B) EL allows me to come back later thus specified.
C) See B. EL allows me to become undestroyed, By rolling the die and putting the model on the table the unit is undestroyed.
D) SA is not an ongoing effect. None of this talk of qualifiers shows how it is in any way.

A) Because the qualifier doesn't allow them to suffice.
B) EL allows you to come back later, but doesn't over-ride SA (that's the "unless otherwise specified" that was referenced).
C) And undestroying the unit means it was rescued, which SA explicitly forbids unless otherwise specified.
D) SA is an ongoing effect - you have no basis for saying it isn't.

The unit is destroyed at this stage and cannot be rescued using a save or special ability unless otherwise specified.
The ball is rolling at this stage and cannot be stopped using a wall or gun unless otherwise specified.

There's no difference in the phrasing of the two sentences, but I seriously doubt you'd argue that the "rolling" is not an ongoing effect. Yet you're arguing that the "destroyed" is not an ongoing effect.

Though I get the feeling we can argue this forever without a consensus.

And I'm willing to leave it there - again. I can absolutely see that there might be two conflicting interpretations. I have disagree with people who say that it can only be one way and I'll argue against that.

edit: ninjaed!

Still that is the Idiomatic reading. The literal meaning the RAW does not mean ongoing.
I see no reason to not read this literally.

No, that's the literal reading. stage == point. You're reading "at this stage" as "at this point in time" when it literally means "at this point".

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually no - and I'm pretty insulted by that insinuation.

means that if he was part of the unit during the movement phase and kicked over a bomb (dangerous terrain test) and died, then yes the rest of the unit would still benefit till

A)he gets back up so they still benefit
B)does not get back up and the benefit ends

this is because this is at the end of the phase and all.

Right. Because they're still his unit. Because the orb only works on him and his unit (not his old unit, or the unit he used to be a member of).

Now lets say the cron lord dies and is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase. That model now has no effect on the game. But wait theres more due to the fact he had a res orb and there is a faq about it. now he does effect his "parent unit" even though he at this point in the game is no longer on the table.

Parent unit? Can you cite a rule referring to that?
Models off the board can absolutely have an effect on the game, both wargear and abilities.

yet a res orb works right. huh.

but if he leaves his unit by walking away and then they take DT tests then no they do not benefit.

But he was a member of the unit - and by your interpretation, that's enough. Because he was a member of the unit, they get the 4+ roll.


yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

(concerning the res orb)

i used "parent unit" as unit he BELONGED to before his untimely demise. which now he is no longer part of yet the unit still benefits from him due to the faq.

if you can cite where it says token is part of the unit, please do

but until then they are not

Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

Kirsanth - D) No one agrees with you there and there is a whole other thread saying why. No need to drag that here.
B) Not an assumption, IMO, and possibly just my opionion nothing removes the EL token thus the rules allow for you to roll.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

Res Orb works for "his unit" while he's off the table.
When a model stands back up, he stands up in coherency of his unit.

The model must be part of the unit while off the table for those rules to work.
I am not asserting that the token is a member of the unit - if I've said it that way it's because it's far easier to type that.
Also, I'd like an apology for the troll comment. I think I've established I'm not trolling in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

So your assertion is that the qualifier/restriction/whathaveyou *only* works for the "moment in time" destruction, not the ongoing state of being destroyed.

Why do you assert that? Is it just based on how you defined "at this stage" to mean "at this point in time"? If so, can you show why you're defining it that way?

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

Res Orb works for "his unit" while he's off the table.
When a model stands back up, he stands up in coherency of his unit.

The model must be part of the unit while off the table for those rules to work.
I am not asserting that the token is a member of the unit - if I've said it that way it's because it's far easier to type that.
Also, I'd like an apology for the troll comment. I think I've established I'm not trolling in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

So your assertion is that the qualifier/restriction/whathaveyou *only* works for the "moment in time" destruction, not the ongoing state of being destroyed.

Why do you assert that? Is it just based on how you defined "at this stage" to mean "at this point in time"? If so, can you show why you're defining it that way?

I think you have gotten away from the actual wording of SA.
SA says:" no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"
So again, I am using EL (A Special Rule) to Save the unit at a different stage.
I think at some point you got it in your head that destroyed has the "at this stage" attached to it.
If that's not what happened I apologize it just seems that way.

As I have said before the reason I define it that way is because that is what it means, literally.

Icemyn wrote:As I have said before the reason I define it that way is because that is what it means, literally.

But it doesn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stage

A stage is not a specific point in time. It encompasses a period of time. There is nothing limiting the time SA prevents the rescuing of the unit.

That's the oxford definition, literally.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:As I have said before the reason I define it that way is because that is what it means, literally.

But it doesn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stage

A stage is not a specific point in time. It encompasses a period of time. There is nothing limiting the time SA prevents the rescuing of the unit.

That's the oxford definition, literally.

Your linked definition actually has a first definition of "point" and "step" I don't know if you noticed that, or chose to willfully ignore it.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/point?q=point
a particular spot, place, or position - Note that it is singular.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/step?q=step
an act or movement - Note that that is singular.

Your oxford dictionary definition is 2/3's Singular. Literally. (Thats being Generous as a period has a start and an end and EL can happen outside of SA's period)
Did that go the way you wanted? No I don't think so. - Will Farrell "The other guys"

Icemyn wrote:Kirsanth - D) No one agrees with you there

I rarely post because I think people agree with me.

"No one" is going a bit far, like if I said no one agrees with you about this so stop bringing it up.

stage

Pronunciation: /steɪdʒ/
noun
1a point, period, or step in a process or development:
there is no need at this stage to give explicit details
I was in the early stages of pregnancy

use the entire definition - Its a part of a whole, not a specific point in time. Look at the example given - an undefined period of time.

So while the individual words that are part of the definition are singular, the entire definition isn't.

Did that go the way you wanted? No I don't think so. - Will Farrell "The other guys"
(typing one handed because my son fell asleep on my other hand - sorry for speed/typos)

So, we're now back to "EL rescues the unit later, so its ok!!!"?

Really?

Think that this was covered back on page 5....

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, we're now back to "EL rescues the unit later, so its ok!!!"?

Really?

Think that this was covered back on page 5....

Page 1, actually.

Round and round the thread goes, where it stops we all know - with someone repeating the same tired, debunked argument from 20 pages ago, in the blind hope we'll stop refuting it?

Argument by attrition?

Or victory through repetition?

At least it didn't make it all the way to 22 pages.

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Kirsanth - D) No one agrees with you there

I rarely post because I think people agree with me.

"No one" is going a bit far, like if I said no one agrees with you about this so stop bringing it up.

I happen to agree with Kirsanth...

rigeld2 wrote:Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

I'm stealing this from you rigeld.

wow 21 pages and no actual answer

There is an actual answer, however, some people disagree with what the answer is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ha. ha. First post on page 22.

Happyjew wrote:There is an actual answer, however, some people disagree with what the answer is.

My thoughts exactly.

time wizard wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: no where does it say this token is part of the unit. this counter this object we are referring to as a RP/or EL token.

The token represents a model that is part of the unit.

This is distinctly wrong and shows you do not understand RP or EL.

When a RP counter is placed and you roll successfully to bring the model back you place the model - not on the counter, but in coherency anywhere with the unit. The counter represents the ability to roll and bring a model back, not the model itself. You do not just replace the counter with the model so it does not represent the model.

Likewise with EL, the counter represents a roll and the ability to bring the model back - not on the counter, but anywhere within 3" of the counter. The counter only represents the ability to roll and the area where the model may return.

Therefore:

SA destroys the unit and all models but does not effect the EL tokens, its effect is done. Just like a destroyed gun on a tank.

Later EL allows a roll to bring a model back. It never violates SA just like a tech priest repairing a gun on a tank does not "save" the gun. It brings it back.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Later EL allows a roll to bring a model back. It never violates SA just like a tech priest repairing a gun on a tank does not "save" the gun. It brings it back.

What? No. Lets say there is a unit with the following special rule that activates when it destroys a weapon:

"We assume that the already destroyed weapon is completely shattered, ripped apart or exploded, its ammunition left either spent, ignited and eliminated, or at best looted and
missing. The destroyed weapon is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the weapon at this stage; for its service is over."

Would you say that a Techmarine can then repair the weapon?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

What? No. Lets say there is a unit with the following special rule that activates when it destroys a weapon:

"We assume that the already destroyed weapon is completely shattered, ripped apart or exploded, its ammunition left either spent, ignited and eliminated, or at best looted and
missing. The destroyed weapon is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the weapon at this stage; for its service is over."

Would you say that a Techmarine can then repair the weapon?

Yes. Because p73 of the SM codex specifically says it can. "If the result is 5 or more, then either a Weapon Destroyed
result or Immobilised result (owning player's choice) will be repaired"

I brought this up 20ish pages ago. That was when I said I don't need to see a rule that allows EL to overcome SA, rather I would be satisfied by seeing a rule that says EL is able to overcome destruction.

Edit : btw, I just finished reading pages 16 -22. You haven't made much progress without me.

So what the the phrase "no special rule can rescue the weapon" mean then? It is useless under your understanding.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So what the the phrase "no special rule can rescue the weapon" mean then? It is useless under your understanding.

I apologize. I answered too quickly. As I said, I had just worked my way through 8 pages of ....hmm .... perfectly phrased debate.

I see your point, one minute while I reconsider


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, I figured out where the disconnect was. I answered the way I did because your hypothetical rule was not phrased how I thought SA was phrased.

page 1, this thread

krisanth wrote: Sweeping advance states that it is only capable of being ignored by rules that specifically mention Sweeping Advance being overruled/ignored

and I took it at face value and believed it.

I know I read the SA rules many times during this discussion, but only now did it occur to me that the above is an assumption. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying the proof I thought I had was not as good as I had thought.

So now I have to ask the question, where did the "Sweeping advance states that it is only capable of being ignored by rules that specifically mention Sweeping Advance being overruled/ignored" ruling come from? A faq? context? anyone remember?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Later EL allows a roll to bring a model back. It never violates SA just like a tech priest repairing a gun on a tank does not "save" the gun. It brings it back.

What? No. Lets say there is a unit with the following special rule that activates when it destroys a weapon:

"We assume that the already destroyed weapon is completely shattered, ripped apart or exploded, its ammunition left either spent, ignited and eliminated, or at best looted and
missing. The destroyed weapon is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the weapon at this stage; for its service is over."

Would you say that a Techmarine can then repair the weapon?

Yes because this occurs "..at this stage". The techmarine can repair the weapon later. Just like EL makes the model come back at another stage. Not at the end of this combat resolution. The next stage would be consolidation moves. The stage after that is complete the rest of the combats for the turn. Then after all of these stages roll for EL for the model to come back.

In fact, EL is not done as part of any particular combat. It occurs at the end of the phase.

So your tack, now its been proven that destroyed is not the same as wiped out (and you mysteriously stopped talking about it...), is to go back to page 1 and claim that SA is limited to a single instance?

When its been proven it isnt?

Really?

So by your reasoning WBB worked against sweeping advance? Simple yes or no here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and for giggles i did a search for WBB and SA, just to show how poor an argument "but RP happens after SA!!!" is.

For a refresher: WBB worked in an entirely different TURN to the sweeping advance, so much much much later!

thread here and here and here

OK, so back on p16 I summed things up and was met with a generally positive response. Let's see where we are.

an even more foolishmortal wrote:The NO position says that the model with EL may not come back as it was part of a unit that was swept and EL makes no specific provision to counter SA.

The PRO position says that the model with EL may come back since the instructions for SA have been completed, but no provision is made in SA to remove an EL counter and the effects of SA are finished resolving before the rules attached to the EL counter.

There are possible EXCEPTIONS to the above general cases, but they accurately describe the current [major] difference of opinion.

I believe we are still at the same basic point. Happily, it is far from a pointless deadlock. We have seen several different pertinent questions and thoughts.

After some extensive searching using the advanced search options, I have learned 2 things.
1) there are about 264,000 posts in the YMDC section of dakka.
2) I did not find a clear answer with supporting argument for either sweeping advance's duration or the distinction between 'destroyed' and 'wiped out'

I have started 2 new threads to try to amass data on the subject. Data is my dakka, MORE dakka!

Some other thoughts I had while reading p16-22

p48 BRB (5th) stats two cases where an IC may not join a unit (in assualt phase and if unit is locked in combat)
p29 necron codex (5th) Ever-living rule, 2nd paragraph explicitly states that a dead IC with EL may under some circumstances join a unit in the assualt phase and/or join a unit in CC

Icemyn wrote:Not to be rude but showing up saying something has merit and then dismissing it out of hand is really a waste of a post.

I disagree sir. It shows that you have read, understand, and appreciate what others have written, but that you are willing to respectfully disagree. This is assuming they disagree in a polite manner. If they are rude, then I agree with Icemyn.

If there are any Terry Pratchett fans out there and you have read Feet of Clay, this thread is starting to feel a great deal like a golem debate. That makes me very happy.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:both rules do not interact with each other.

Only if you think it is not rescuing, to bring a unit back from certain destruction. And that "this stage" is not Sweeping Advance [occurring] and is an indeterminate instant. And that a model in a unit that was wiped out is no longer part of that unit DURING ASSAULT - and thus not an IC.

I may be thinking too far outside the box here, but I had an odd thought. I just re-read several of the new faqs. One entry just popped up in my brain when I read this.

p5 Update 1.5 WH40k (FAQ)
"Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule."

What if when the warrior unit is swept, the dead IC with EL ceases to be joined to it in a similar manner? It's along the same line as what happens to a Character that lost its retinue (p48 BRB)

too crazy?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your tack, now its been proven that destroyed is not the same as wiped out (and you mysteriously stopped talking about it...), is to go back to page 1 and claim that SA is limited to a single instance?

When its been proven it isnt?

No, quite the opposite has been proven, though perhaps my sarcasm escaped you in my final post on the matter. Let me reiterate:

In British English some alternative meanings for "wiped out" are to be really really tired, and lose control of a vehicle. You used these alternate definitions to try to say my definition was wrong, but they actually have nothing to do with this discussion and mean nothing. Nobody has given an alternate meaning for the phrase "wiped out" in British English that makes any sense at in the context of this discussion. Therefore it stands that "wiped out" means exactly the same thing as "destroyed".

The whole nonsense about a "wiped out" unit not being destroyed is false.
The whole nonsense about a "destroyed unit" has not been wiped out is also clearly false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So by your reasoning WBB worked against sweeping advance? Simple yes or no here.

WBB worked completely differently than EL and has no bearing on this discussion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your tack, now its been proven that destroyed is not the same as wiped out (and you mysteriously stopped talking about it...), is to go back to page 1 and claim that SA is limited to a single instance?

When its been proven it isnt?

Really?

I'm going to preface this by saying I am not trying to pick a fight. There are users in this thread with thousands of posts on dakka. Presumably, they have extensive play experience as well. I have been playing 40k for less than 2 years and by no means has it been 2 years of solid play. I definately have a lot to learn, and I will try to approach my time on dakka with that in mind.

Respectfully, I just went through 22 pages of text with the find function, looking at each instance of the text-string "wipe"

I found several strong arguments for wipe out not equaling destroyed. I made some of them.

I looked quickly and may very well have missed something. If so, I apologize and will print a huge retraction.

Please tell me the page # of this thread to look more carefully.

Meanwhile, is it possible that when you say it was "proved", what you mean is that it was argued successfully and most people (including me) agreed at a point earlier in this discussion?

foolishmortal wrote:

I found several strong arguments for wipe out not equaling destroyed. I made some of them.

I looked quickly and may very well have missed something. If so, I apologize and will print a huge retraction.

Please tell me the page # of this thread to look more carefully.

Meanwhile, is it possible that when you say it was "proved", what you mean is that it was argued successfully and most people (including me) agreed at a point earlier in this discussion?

I saw many posts where people have explained their idea that "wiped out" can mean something different from "destroyed" in game terms, but nobody has given a bit of evidence or proof other than a single entry in the entire rulebook that uses the phrase. That makes their argument weak at best.

By definition "wiped out" means "destroyed" and my British friends have not had any problem with this or even suggested it means anything else.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I saw many posts where people have explained their idea that "wiped out" can mean something different from "destroyed" in game terms, but nobody has given a bit of evidence or proof other than a single entry in the entire rulebook that uses the phrase. That makes their argument weak at best.

Most of the arguments are contextual in nature. I disagree about them being weak. I think they make a good case that GW has different things in mind with 'wiped out' and 'destroyed'. But there are exceptions, as I am fining in my research thread. If I find enough exceptions, then strong becomes less strong, possibly even weak.

Nemesor Dave wrote:By definition "wiped out" means "destroyed" and my British friends have not had any problem with this or even suggested it means anything else.

Here it is quite similar. "Wiped out" and "destroyed" are used synonymously. "Wiped out" is also used in the US as a reference to feeling tired or a vehicle crash (not just cars but bikes, skateboards, water skis, snow skis, surf boards, etc also) "Destroyed" is used informally to mean "I had such a good time I now feel wiped out" I read an article on BBC news about the guy from England that got sent back because he tweeted "destroyed" in this context. Airport security has NOOOOOOOO sense of humor. While I agree that such a comment would be in poor taste in person, in an airport, I fail to see why the TSA is reading the whole world's tweets.

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I saw many posts where people have explained their idea that "wiped out" can mean something different from "destroyed" in game terms, but nobody has given a bit of evidence or proof other than a single entry in the entire rulebook that uses the phrase. That makes their argument weak at best.

Most of the arguments are contextual in nature. I disagree about them being weak. I think they make a good case that GW has different things in mind with 'wiped out' and 'destroyed'. But there are exceptions, as I am fining in my research thread. If I find enough exceptions, then strong becomes less strong, possibly even weak.

For arguments sake lets say you're right and there are two conditions a unit can be in. 1. Destroyed and 2. Wiped out. And these are two separate states a unit can be in. Don't you think they would mention the "wiped out" in more than one sentence in a way that is not even emphasized?

What if you didn't notice that single time "wiped out" is used. Would you think there are two DISTINCT conditions a unit might be in when its removed - "wiped out" or "destroyed" from any other context? Not a chance.

This is why it's a weak argument.

It is entirely possible that I am defending it as a NOT weak argument, due to the fact that I agreed with it strongly at one point and still do to some extent. If it is was a weak argument and I failed to demand better proof, that might imply that I am weak minded. We are all human. Some of us more than others.

foolishmortal wrote:It is entirely possible that I am defending it as a NOT weak argument, due to the fact that I agreed with it strongly at one point and still do to some extent. If it is was a weak argument and I failed to demand better proof, that might imply that I am weak minded. We are all human. Some of us more than others.

Nothing personal meant at all by calling it a weak argument. I just mean that if there were multiple statements I could agree or disagree with it would be stronger. Or if it was implied in some other way by context. I don't have much to argue against other than to say you have almost no supporting evidence.

Even the British English vs American English argument could be useful if someone could offer an actual alternative meaning to "wiped out" that I could verify. "losing control of a vehicle" is clearly not applicable as neither is "tired" and so as of yet nobody has given a valid British English alternative meaning to "wiped out". Please don't expect me explain synonyms or how multiple entries under a single word in a dictionary work. Just give me a valid alternate British English meaning and I'll go verify it myself.

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

Res Orb works for "his unit" while he's off the table.
When a model stands back up, he stands up in coherency of his unit.

The model must be part of the unit while off the table for those rules to work.
I am not asserting that the token is a member of the unit - if I've said it that way it's because it's far easier to type that.
Also, I'd like an apology for the troll comment. I think I've established I'm not trolling in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

So your assertion is that the qualifier/restriction/whathaveyou *only* works for the "moment in time" destruction, not the ongoing state of being destroyed.

Why do you assert that? Is it just based on how you defined "at this stage" to mean "at this point in time"? If so, can you show why you're defining it that way?

If a dead model is part of a unit while dead then my 11+ ork boyz are always fearless. No matter if their they have less than 11. A dead model (boy) is still part of the unit therefore counts for mob rule.

Clearly that is what you're saying.

When the model comes back he is re-attached to his unit if applicable. But off table is not part of.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Even the British English vs American English argument could be useful if someone could offer an actual alternative meaning to "wiped out" that I could verify. "losing control of a vehicle" is clearly not applicable as neither is "tired" and so as of yet nobody has given a valid British English alternative meaning to "wiped out". Please don't expect me explain synonyms or how multiple entries under a single word in a dictionary work. Just give me a valid alternate British English meaning and I'll go verify it myself.

Contextually from GW's writings, I have found that wiped out usually means "completely removed from the board due to being removed as casualties." This is merely how I understand it. As I said, I have been looking hard for strong GW ruling proof and finding little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:If a dead model is part of a unit while dead then my 11+ ork boyz are always fearless. No matter if their they have less than 11. A dead model (boy) is still part of the unit therefore counts for mob rule.

Clearly that is what you're saying.

When the model comes back he is re-attached to his unit if applicable. But off table is not part of.

I respectfully disagree.

There are times when a unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant. The ork boyz is a good example.

There are other times when the unit is considered without casualties being relevant. The maximum number of warriors that can come back due to a the use of a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge ability for example.

I do agree that the two situations are not always clearly defined and that treating dead models as NOT part of the unit is a good default assumption.

foolishmortal wrote:

There are times when a unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant. The ork boyz is a good example.

There are other times when the unit is considered without casualties being relevant. The maximum number of warriors that can come back due to a the use of a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge ability for example.

Actually in the ghost ark case casualties are irrelevant to the rule also. The rule refers to "the units starting size". So the unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant.

Perhaps you have a better example?

Which means, if (for example) a unit got swept in Player 1 Turn 1 Assault (unlikely I know), and the Cryptek/Lord were to come back, within a few turns you could have your original warrior unit. Even though the unit was swept and destroyed.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Actually in the ghost ark case casualties are irrelevant to the rule also. The rule refers to "the units starting size". So the unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant.
Perhaps you have a better example?

The other commonly used example in this thread was

"Q: If a model carrying a resurrection orb is removed as
a casualty, can you still benefit from it when rolling for
his, and his unit’s, Reanimation Protocol rolls that
phase? (p82)
A: Yes."

The dead model with the orb is still influences "his unit's" RP rolls. I will let others find other examples. I want to debunk right now, I've done enough bunking.

Necrons had an astounding, informative, and rapidly-released FAQ.

Why couldn't GW have just spelled this one out for all of us and put this baby to bed??!

As much as I want to believe that an EL character can return after a sweeping advance, provided he rolls that 5+(4+), it seems there are more detractors than proponents of this tactic. Either way will be fine, just give us a ruling GW!

That influence kicks in at the time of the RP roll. The model/orb's presence is not required until that time. You can't use that faq to create a link between the EL counter and the unit.

As I said before counters don't inherit the conditions of their units. If the overlord dies, and later the rest of the unit gets pinned and after that dies, a succesfull EL roll for the overlord won't bring him up as pinned. He will get up in a normal condition.

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Actually in the ghost ark case casualties are irrelevant to the rule also. The rule refers to "the units starting size". So the unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant.
Perhaps you have a better example?

The other commonly used example in this thread was

"Q: If a model carrying a resurrection orb is removed as
a casualty, can you still benefit from it when rolling for
his, and his unit’s, Reanimation Protocol rolls that
phase? (p82)
A: Yes."

The dead model with the orb is still influences "his unit's" RP rolls. I will let others find other examples. I want to debunk right now, I've done enough bunking.

I don't think your viewpoint has been stated any better in this thread, however it is still flawed.

From your statements you cannot tell us any other guideline for when a dead model is considered to effect the living unit and when it doesn't. There is no precedent at all for anything in the game effecting dead models. You can't just pick and choose.

In this case the rule creates an exception that the unit that the dead model was part of benefits from the wargear the model had.

In every other case in the game it works the opposite way. Dead models are no longer part of their unit.

Do orc boys get mob rule when they have 8 living and 5 dead models?
Does a unit with a dead cryptek still benefit from its Seismic Crucible? (This may deserve it's own thread)

Simply put - a res orb is an exception to the rule.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Does a unit with a dead cryptek still benefit from its Seismic Crucible? (This may deserve it's own thread)

Couldn't happen. The roll for seismic srucible takes place at the start of the enemy Assault phase.

At this point the cryptek is either on the board because no cc attacks hae occurred, or it was removed after failing its EL roll (if it needed to take one) at the end of the shooting phase.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do orc boys get mob rule when they have 8 living and 5 dead models?

I don't have the orc codex - what's the rule say?
(I know what the effect is, I just want to know the exact wording)

time wizard wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Does a unit with a dead cryptek still benefit from its Seismic Crucible? (This may deserve it's own thread)

Couldn't happen. The roll for seismic srucible takes place at the start of the enemy Assault phase.

At this point the cryptek is either on the board because no cc attacks hae occurred, or it was removed after failing its EL roll (if it needed to take one) at the end of the shooting phase.

True. The argument for the dead modeling getting affected by SA relies on the assumption that a dead model (and/or its wargear) effects the unit they were in for the phase during which they died. Except for Res Orb there is no such rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do orc boys get mob rule when they have 8 living and 5 dead models?

I don't have the orc codex - what's the rule say?
(I know what the effect is, I just want to know the exact wording)

"If an orc mob numbers 11 or more models it has the fearless special rule."

One of the interesting things that I've read here by the 'no' faction is that by rolling for EL at the end of the phase you are rescuing the Unit, thus running afoul of that particular restriction in the SA rules.

So my question then is, does SA retroactively prevent the EL model that was removed as a casualty from generating an EL counter/marker?

In the scenario we've been debating the EL model is removed as a casualty in close combat and an EL counter/marker is placed where it was removed. The Unit is subsequently Swept.

If you're saying that the EL roll at the end of the phase is not possible because it retroactively affects SA, then how can SA retroactively stop the EL model from generating a counter?

SA doesn't remove counters, right?

And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Simply put - a res orb is an exception to the rule.

It may be an exception, but it is an extremely relevant exception for the current discussion.
The fate of the dead IC with EL joined to the Swept unit, may well hinge on whether or not he is still part of that unit. This faq language suggests that he is. The KP discussion from earlier and the new faq language on Dark Eldar PfP and Nurgles is also interesting.

Just because the ghost arc repair barge ability intelligently refers to the unit's "starting size" does not invalidate the idea. [begin sarcasm] It's just an oddly coherent rule (now that it's faq'd) for the necron codex. I was caught off guard by all the sense that it made and the clearness of it. [/end sarcasm]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:
And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.


p29 says that all counters are removed from a unit of falling back Necrons. I would argue that the all probably refers to all RP counters. Still, this only clarifies that the RP counters are removed, not necessarily that the EL counter has blanket immunity.


edit:

For what it's worth
My e-mail to GW
The 40k rules, codexs, and FAQs often use the phrases "destroyed"
and/or "wiped out"

Are these two terms interchangeable? Is one a subset of the other?
What is the (if any) distinction?

GW's response
Hey there XXXXXXX,

Thanks for writing in to us! Both terms mean the same thing - the
complete destruction of a unit.

Thanks!

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Customer Services Manager

also, props to GW for using one of the two phrases I wanted clarified in the combined definition. Not quite circular, but they're trying

OK, I need a nap

foolishmortal wrote:This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.

This being a permissive rules set and all, shouldn't you be showing where it says that you do remove them?

Monster Rain wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.

This being a permissive rules set and all, shouldn't you be showing where it says that you do remove them?

The evidence is the wording of the RP rule, which says that if the unit is swept you remove ALL counters, not all RP counters. Read literally, that means that when a unit with RP is swept, every single counter associated with the unit is removed, regardless of what said counter is representing.

foolishmortal wrote:

Yad wrote:
And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.


p29 says that all counters are removed from a unit of falling back Necrons. I would argue that the all probably refers to all RP counters. Still, this only clarifies that the RP counters are removed, not necessarily that the EL counter has blanket immunity.

I've gone back and forth with Kirsanth on this one. When you look at p.29 of the Necron code you see the two separate entries we are concerned with, Reanimation Protocols and Ever-living. Each entry is a self contained rule (i.e., game mechanic). The EL entry only references/draws from the RP entry in two instances.

1.) What dice to roll and how to interpret them.
2.) How to return an EL model that was removed as a casualty and succeeded on the EL roll.

Aside from that there are no other interactions between RP and EL. There is no language in the EL entry that states that EL is handled exactly the same as RP (aside of course from what I just described). As I explained to Kirsanth, even the counters are named and placed differently.

Thus, when you read about the the counters being removed after a successful Fall Back move is completed, it is the RP counters, and only the RP counters, that are removed.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.

This being a permissive rules set and all, shouldn't you be showing where it says that you do remove them?

The evidence is the wording of the RP rule, which says that if the unit is swept you remove ALL counters, not all RP counters. Read literally, that means that when a unit with RP is swept, every single counter associated with the unit is removed, regardless of what said counter is representing.

The context of the statement, contained inside of the RP section, suggests to me that it only cares about the RP counters.

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:

No, quite the opposite has been proven, though perhaps my sarcasm escaped you in my final post on the matter. Let me reiterate:

Ah, so when you couldnt find an actual definition saying what you want it to say, yiu just assumed theyre equivalent?

Interesting, in an entirely useless way.

Nemesor Dave wrote:whole nonsense about a "wiped out" unit not being destroyed is false.
The whole nonsense about a "destroyed unit" has not been wiped out is also clearly false.

So clearly you dont need to find any evidence of it, and can ignore evidence to the contrary?

Interesting, again

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So by your reasoning WBB worked against sweeping advance? Simple yes or no here.

WBB worked completely differently than EL and has no bearing on this discussion.

Ah, yet again you are entirely wrong.

Wbb worked when you were removed as a casualty
It used a token to represent the fallen model
It was not a save
It operated after the usual to hit, wound, save sequence

So when you say entirely differently, youre wrong. And wbb, which worked at an even LATER point to EL didnt work

Your argument about destroyed / wiped out is debunked, and has been for many pages now
Your argument that it works becuase it occurs "after" sa is debunked, again, with an example to show that your argukent hasnt beed valid since 2004

Youre done

Which when you boil it all down is the crux of my argument. If the Fall Back move removes both types of counters, then my argument fails as there would be no counters to handle at the end of the phase. I don't think that's the case. I think that as soon as the model with EL is removed as a casualty, the counter is placed and nothing can remove it.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

The context of the statement, contained inside of the RP section, suggests to me that it only cares about the RP counters.

-Yad

But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

As it stands, and unless I have the wording wrong, the rule indicates that all counters associated with a unit with the RP rule are removed when that unit is subject to a Sweeping Advance. In order for any counter to NOT be removed, then, it either needs to not be associated with the unit, or have a specific exception.

Which brings us right back to 'Is a dead model with EL still part of the unit'.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

The context of the statement, contained inside of the RP section, suggests to me that it only cares about the RP counters.

-Yad

But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

As it stands, and unless I have the wording wrong, the rule indicates that all counters associated with a unit with the RP rule are removed when that unit is subject to a Sweeping Advance. In order for any counter to NOT be removed, then, it either needs to not be associated with the unit, or have a specific exception.

Which brings us right back to 'Is a dead model with EL still part of the unit'.

There has been many a thread where the context in which a rule, or set of rules, is read from is treated just as importantly as the rule itself. I hold both the RP rules and the EL rules to be in silos. Any reference to counters in the RP rules are always in reference to the RP counter.

Additionally, the counters (RP ) aren't removed when the Unit is subject to a Sweeping Advance, they are removed when the unit fails its Morale Check and completes a fall back move (Necron Codex p.29). SA never has anything to do with the counters. The part about the model still being counted as part of the unit strikes me as irrelevant.

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that are physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
5.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
6.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

I need to clarify point #4. That should really read, "Only those models/units that are 'in play' can be destroyed and removed from play.

Yad wrote:

There has been many a thread where the context in which a rule, or set of rules, a read from is just as important as the rule itself. I hold both the RP rules and the EL rules to be in silos. Any reference to counters in the RP rules are always in reference to the RP counter.

-Yad

Rules consist of many different pieces. Some of those pieces are internally separated from each other, but most are not; rules always have to be read together with other rules. The basic assumption, essentially, must be that whatever a rule says applies to the whole ruleset, otherwise things start to break.

For instance; the rules for Access Points are in the 'Fire Points' section of the Vehicle rules, but the rules for USING them (disembarking) are in a different section. If we're going to assume that rules are sealed off from each other like this, then I would argue it's not actually possible to embark or disembark from a vehicle. Why? Because you can't determine what access points are, or how to use them, without referencing a different and (on the face of it) totally unrelated section of the rules.

Arbitrarily limiting a rule that says "all counters" to only affect "all RP counters" is unjustified, and doing so requires textual evidence. What is that textual evidence? And no; merely being found in a section headed "Resurrection Protocols" does not count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
4.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
5.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

Sweeping Advance is resolved AFTER Fall Back moves, I believe. . . I'm on-campus and don't have my rulebook available, can someone confirm?

BeRzErKeR wrote:But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

So shouldn't you be the one showing where it says in the Rules that you do remove the EL counters?

Why is the burden of proof on the one with whom you disagree?

Man, I'm just glad that no one has tried to say that when the cryptek/lord go down they get both an EL counter and an RP counter. After all they have both rules.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
4.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
5.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

Sweeping Advance is resolved AFTER Fall Back moves, I believe. . . I'm on-campus and don't have my rulebook available, can someone confirm?

Agreed. I'm making that assumption between #1 & #2 that the unit has failed it's Morale Check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Man, I'm just glad that no one has tried to say that when the cryptek/lord go down they get both an EL counter and an RP counter. After all they have both rules.

Sweeping Advance is after morale checks, and if unsuccessful, the fleeing unit makes a fall back move. Fluff-wise they happen simultaneously.

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

So shouldn't you be the one showing where it says in the Rules that you do remove the EL counters?

Why is the burden of proof on the one with whom you disagree?

He is. He's saying that the reference to 'any counters' in the Reanimation Protocols means both EL counters and RP counters. I think that given the context of the rules and how EL inter-operates with RP, the reference is for any RP counters.

-Yad

Yad wrote:He is. He's saying that the reference to 'any counters' in the Reanimation Protocols means both EL counters and RP counters. I think that given the context of the rules and how EL inter-operates with RP, the reference is for any RP counters.

-Yad

Missed that, then. My mistake.

I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
4.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
5.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

Sweeping Advance is resolved AFTER Fall Back moves, I believe. . . I'm on-campus and don't have my rulebook available, can someone confirm?

Agreed. I'm making that assumption between #1 & #2 that the unit has failed it's Morale Check.

Right, but doesn't that mean that the unit both fell back AND suffered a Sweeping Advance? In which case, when the unit failed that Morale check, all the counters were removed, before the Sweeping Advance ever occurred.

You still haven't provided that textual evidence; as I said, based on precedent from the BRB, simply being found in a certain section is not a justification to limit the applicability of a rule to only what is found in that particular section. Or, in other words, headers are not rules, only rules text is.

BRB pg 40. When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance, attempting to cut down the retreating enemies.

So first a unit falls back and then they can be caught in a sweeping advance.


edit: I thought BeRzErKeR said the opposite and had that edited. Oh well

Monster Rain wrote:I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

EL states that it is done just as RP. So there is a specific reason (rule, even) NOT to say only RP counters. Which is what was done.

Show proof they did not mean to write what they wrote.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

EL states that it is done just as RP. So there is a specific reason (rule, even) NOT to say only RP counters. Which is what was done.

Show proof they did not mean to write what they wrote.

Come on, man.

Don't be fallacious like that.

It says the roll is made just like RP.

copper.talos wrote:BRB pg 40. When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance, attempting to cut down the retreating enemies.

So first a unit falls back and then they can be caught in a sweeping advance.

Thank you.

So, the actual series of events is this;

1. Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2. Unit loses combat, takes a Morale check, and fails. The unit Falls Back and all counters are removed.
3. An opposed Initiative test is taken; the unit loses, so it suffers a Sweeping Advance.
4. The whole unit is now destroyed, and cannot return (at least not via RP); in addition, there are none of the unit's counters on the board after the Sweeping Advance is concluded.

Now; it is still possible to argue that the EL counter remains. In order to do so, you have to do one of two things.

1) Provide textual evidence that "all counters" means "all RP counters" rather than "all counters of any type". This may well be possible, depending on the exact wording; I do not own the Newcron codex, so I've been working on the basis of what quotes I've seen in the various threads about them. If there's some wording that indicates that ONLY RP counters are removed, then the EL counter would remain.

Or,

2) Present evidence that the EL counter is not associated with the unit. I contend that it is; it is associated with the IC who was RFPaaC, and he is still part of the unit. That being so, the counter is necessarily associated with the unit. However, if any rules text can be found which tells us that models which are RFPaaC are no longer part of their previous unit, then the EL counter would remain, because the SA result would be irrelevant to it.

Successfully making Argument 1 wouldn't settle the overall issue of whether EL can bring an attached IC back from SA even if successful; it still leaves open the argument that an attached IC is part of the unit and thus cannot be rescued (as well as the argument that even if EL does an end-run around SA, the IC has been destroyed twice and only recovered once, and so is still dead).

Successfully making Argument 2, by contrast, would end the whole argument; if the attached IC ceases to be part of the unit as soon as it is RFPaaC, then it was never subject to the Sweeping Advance at all and so can recover perfectly well. Since I think we all agree that an IC which is actually destroyed BY a Sweeping Advance (as opposed to being killed earlier and then having its unit swept) cannot use EL to come back, that would settle the entire debate. However, given the precedent of the Necron FAQ, you'll have your work cut out for you here.

EDIT: This space intentionally left blank.

@kirsanth
The EL roll is done just like the RP roll. No mention that the RP counters are like the EL ones, The counters are fundamentally different.

BeRzErKeR wrote:EDIT: I notice copper.talos has edited his post. Did you misread the rule?

No, his rules quote is correct. I posted the same thing a few pages ago.

@BeRzErKeR
No I didn't read your earlier post correctly and thought you said the opposite.

Ah, good. I'm not crazy, then.

SO! It seems to me that the next thing to do is to see if there is evidence present for Argument 1 or Argument 2.

If Argument 1 is valid, then we can get back on the merry-go-round and have another nineteen or twenty pages of talking past each other.

If Argument 2 is valid, then the question of whether a previously-killed IC can use EL after his unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance is answered in the affirmative. I suppose we could still wrangle about ICs who are actually removed BY the Sweeping Advance, but I was under the impression that we had a consensus on that.

If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Does that sound accurate?

Sounds good to me.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Does that sound accurate?

Up until you make this leap, yes.

BeRzErKeR wrote:If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Argument 2 isnt needed as much - you need to prove you arent rescuing a member of the unit, while not being in possession of appropriate permission to do so.

I'm going to bow out of adding more to this discussion. In attempting to get evidence regarding the two posted arguments I caught myself injecting a bias into my interpretations. I'd rather not color the outcome by doing so.

I believe I have remained relatively unbiased until now.

I will be watching the thread with great interest.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ah, good. I'm not crazy, then.

If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Does that sound accurate?

I think this bit presents a false choice. The instructions on when and how you can remove [RP] counters are found only in the RP rule section. Meaning their removal is directed/controled by the RP rule-set. As that rule only mentions a completed fall back move as the only way you can remove the counters then a SA cannot do so.

-Yad

Aside from that, I think you've given a good summary.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

EL states that it is done just as RP. So there is a specific reason (rule, even) NOT to say only RP counters. Which is what was done.

Show proof they did not mean to write what they wrote.

Come on, man.

Don't be fallacious like that.

It says the roll is made just like RP.

copper.talos wrote:@kirsanth
The EL roll is done just like the RP roll. No mention that the RP counters are like the EL ones, The counters are fundamentally different.

No.

1:It says "roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter".


Not done in similar manners.
2:Q: Is the roll for an Ever-living counter the same as a
Reanimation Protocol roll. . .? (p29)
A: Yes. . .

= 3: Roll for EL counters just as you would roll RP counters; since the rolls are the same, they have the same restrictions (except where specified otherwise, for the rules impaired).

Which is to say, if you cannot roll for the RP counter, you cannot roll for the EL counter.
Nothing in the rules says to separate the rolls, and there is a rule saying those rolls are the same.

kirsanth wrote:[Nothing in the rules says to separate the rolls, and there is a rule saying those rolls are the same.

Except, of course, the Ever Living rules description.

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Does that sound accurate?

Up until you make this leap, yes.

BeRzErKeR wrote:If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

It's not a leap at all; it's a logical requirement.

If the EL counter is associated with the unit, and all counters associated with the unit are removed when a Necron unit with the Resurrection Protocols rule Falls Back (in other words, if neither Argument 1 nor Argument 2 can be proven), then the only logically permissible conclusion is that EL counters are removed when a Necron unit with Resurrection Protocols rule Falls Back; and since you Fall Back BEFORE Sweeping Advance is conducted, that means that any unit with Resurrection Protocols which suffers a Sweeping Advance must, necessarily, have by that point removed the EL counters of any attached Independent Characters.

Does that make sense?

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:[Nothing in the rules says to separate the rolls, and there is a rule saying those rolls are the same.

Except, of course, the Ever Living rules description.

I get it, you think that FAQ was specifying how to roll a d6.


Hard to argue with that mentality.

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ah, good. I'm not crazy, then.

If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Does that sound accurate?

I think this bit presents a false choice. The instructions on when and how you can remove [RP] counters are found only in the RP rule section. Meaning their removal is directed/controled by the RP rule-set. As that rule only mentions a completed fall back move as the only way you can remove the counters then a SA cannot do so.

-Yad

Aside from that, I think you've given a good summary.

But according to the rules, Fall Back moves are triggered by the same thing that trigger Sweeping Advance (losing a combat, then failing a Leadership check), and happen first; which means that any unit which ever suffers a Sweeping Advance has already made a Fall Back move.

BeRzErKeR wrote:If the EL counter is associated with the unit, and all counters associated with the unit are removed when a Necron unit with the Resurrection Protocols rule Falls Back (in other words, if neither Argument 1 nor Argument 2 can be proven), then the only logically permissible conclusion is that EL counters are removed when a Necron unit with Resurrection Protocols rule Falls Back; and since you Fall Back BEFORE Sweeping Advance is conducted, that means that any unit with Resurrection Protocols which suffers a Sweeping Advance must, necessarily, have by that point removed the EL counters of any attached Independent Characters.

Does that make sense?

I understand what you're saying, but since the EL roll can be made independently of the unit in which the character with the rule had joined I don't see it as being that clear cut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Hard to argue with that mentality.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about people who get really hostile while discussing the rules for Space Barbies.

Look at the other people that I've discussed this with for examples of how to do it reasonably. Berserker and Lordhat, for example, though there have been others.

Monster Rain wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but since the EL roll can be made independently of the unit in which the character with the rule had joined I don't see it as being that clear cut.

So you're making Argument 2, then; you're claiming that the EL counter isn't associated with the unit. Right?

That then runs afoul of the Necron FAQ again; the wargear, at least, of a dead IC still affects his unit. That implies that the IC is still part of that unit, since of course the wargear can't affect a unit he isn't a part of. Is there a counter-example somewhere?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but since the EL roll can be made independently of the unit in which the character with the rule had joined I don't see it as being that clear cut.

So you're making Argument 2, then; you're claiming that the EL counter isn't associated with the unit.

That then runs afoul of the Necron FAQ again; the wargear, at least, of a dead IC still affects his unit. That implies that the IC is still part of that unit, since of course the wargear can't affect a unit he isn't a part of. Is there a counter-example somewhere?

I think applying the Res Orb ruling to the EL debate is part of the problem. It seems contradictory to me, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Res orb on a dead IC affects the unit, but the dead IC can come back if his unit has been destroyed.

@kirsanth
Every ruling you mentioned, governs the rolls for EL and RP counters. The roll is the same but the prerequistive is different. The RP rolls require RP counters and EL rolls require EL counters. Those counters are fundamentally different. If they were to be the same, then there wouldn't be a need for 2 kinds of counters.

Monster Rain wrote:Funny, I was thinking the same thing about people who get really hostile while discussing the rules for Space Barbies.

Look at the other people that I've discussed this with for examples of how to do it reasonably. Berserker and Lordhat, for example, though there have been others.

I have been hostile? Push the little yellow button.

What do your barbies have to do with anything??

If being reasonable means ignoring your unreason. . .sure? But even then, I do not see it.

You are saying that the two rolls are done just as each other but they do not use any of the same rule except for the d6.
I think that is utter nonsense.

How is that being unreasonable, and not simply calling you on what I see as a ridiculous error?

Monster Rain wrote:

I think applying the Res Orb ruling to the EL debate is part of the problem. It seems contradictory to me, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

This is what I'm asking; contradictory of what?

The question of whether a dead IC continued to be a part of his unit has honestly never come up before, I don't believe. That being so, I don't think there's any contradictory precedent. I could have missed something, of course; what is it that you're thinking of when you say it seems contradictory?

EDIT: Argument moved to a later post, for the sake of clarity. Damn slow editing function.

copper.talos wrote: If they were to be the exactly the same, then there wouldn't be a need for 2 kinds of counters.

The rule for RP simply says counters BECAUSE they are different.

If it had said RP counters, you would be 100% undeniably correct.

It doesn't. You are not.

Editing to add:
This is like my uber-vindication of my "utterly absurd" stance on Warp Time.
It said "all" because it meant it.

Without a qualifier, "counters" means "all counters".

AFAIK, the only difference of the 2 counters is as follows:
How they are placed.
...RP-next to unit
...EL-where model went down
How the models who passed are placed.
...RP-in coherency with unit
...EL-in coherency with unit or within 3" of counter
If you need the unit to come back.
...RP-Yes
...EL-No

Are there any other listed differences I might have missed?

kirsanth wrote:I have been hostile? Push the little yellow button.

I'm much more apt to just push the ignore button.

I'm sorry that you think that I'm being unreasonable by disagreeing with you.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I think applying the Res Orb ruling to the EL debate is part of the problem. It seems contradictory to me, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.

This is what I'm asking; contradictory of what?

The question of whether a dead IC continued to be a part of his unit has honestly never come up before, I don't believe. That being so, I don't think there's any contradictory precedent. I could have missed something, of course; what is it that you're thinking of when you say it seems contradictory?

I'm saying that the Necron FAQ, now that we've gone over this in such detail, seems to contradict itself in regard to whether or not a dead IC is part of a unit or not. I don't think there's any precedent for this at all.

Monster Rain wrote:

I'm saying that the Necron FAQ, now that we've gone over this in such detail, seems to contradict itself in regard to whether or not a dead IC is part of a unit or not. I don't think there's any precedent for this at all.

Ok, let's think about this.

First of all; do note that the only circumstance in which the IC can come back alone is when the unit has been wiped out. So, first point; as long as the unit exists, these two don't contradict. The IC can't leave the unit, even if he's dead. I would interpret that as saying that the UNIT can, in certain circumstances, leave HIM even when HE isn't allowed to leave THEM.

That isn't contradictory, read that way. A unit can be wiped out by effects which only happen to specific models; wounds taken in close combat, for instance. All the models are gone, that means the unit is gone by definition. What the Necron FAQ has done is given ICs a special dispensation to return even after every individual model in the unit has been killed. Since the unit no longer exists on the tabletop, they cannot then be part of that unit anymore, so they get to come back alone.

I don't see that the FAQ ruling in this case says anything, however, about effects which encompass the whole unit as a singular entity, rather than affecting all its pieces individually. The unit, as an entity, still includes the dead IC; that's what the Rez Orb ruling told us. Given that, anything that affects the whole unit should affect him, too; including removing tokens that are associated with him.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm saying that the Necron FAQ, now that we've gone over this in such detail, seems to contradict itself in regard to whether or not a dead IC is part of a unit or not. I don't think there's any precedent for this at all.

Oddly, this is sort of where I am coming from. It agrees with what I have always said, and has no contradiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm sorry that you think that I'm being unreasonable by disagreeing with you.

You don't? Are you crazy?

I think anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable, simply because I know I am so reasonable, that I would change my mind as soon as someone proves me wrong. . .

BeRzErKeR wrote:I don't see that the rule says anything, however, about effects which encompass the whole unit as a singular entity, rather than affecting all its pieces individually. The unit, as an entity, still includes the dead IC; that's what the Rez Orb ruling told us. Given that, anything that affects the whole unit should affect him, too; including removing tokens that are associated with him.

The last paragraph in the RP rules doesn't fit with that interpretation, though, does it?

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I don't see that the rule says anything, however, about effects which encompass the whole unit as a singular entity, rather than affecting all its pieces individually. The unit, as an entity, still includes the dead IC; that's what the Rez Orb ruling told us. Given that, anything that affects the whole unit should affect him, too; including removing tokens that are associated with him.

The last paragraph in the RP rules doesn't fit with that interpretation, though, does it?

I think it does. As I said before, I don't have access to the Codex, so I can't peruse the exact wording right now.

If someone could quote the rule here it would be helpful; but it's been discussed quite a lot by this point, and I haven't yet seen anything that contradicts my argument. Are you thinking of something in specific?

I'm basing this piece of the argument on the FAQ ruling on Rez Orbs, not the RP rule itself, by the way.

I'm thinking about how the RP rules say that you remove all of the counters after the last model is removed as a casualty (in the same breath as using the word "destroyed", mind) in stark contrast to the EL rules, and FAQ ruling.

Also, the attached IC doesn't count for allowing the unit to make RP rolls, so he's no longer part of the unit at that point either, it would seem.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm thinking about how the RP rules say that you remove all of the counters after the last model is removed as a casualty (in the same breath as using the word "destroyed", mind) in stark contrast to the EL rules, and FAQ ruling.

Also, the attached IC doesn't count for allowing the unit to make RP rolls, so he's no longer part of the unit at that point either, it would seem.

Don't the RP rules tell you to remove all counters when the unit makes a Fall Back move?

And still no one has answered my question, about halfway up.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm thinking about how the RP rules say that you remove all of the counters after the last model is removed as a casualty (in the same breath as using the word "destroyed", mind) in stark contrast to the EL rules, and FAQ ruling.

Also, the attached IC doesn't count for allowing the unit to make RP rolls, so he's no longer part of the unit at that point either, it would seem.

Don't the RP rules tell you to remove all counters when the unit makes a Fall Back move?

In addition to what I posted, yes.

It says to remove all counters when the unit has been destroyed (read: all models have been removed as casualties) as well, though. And we know that EL contradicts that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:And still no one has answered my question, about halfway up.

I think we're in the process of working that out.

Monster Rain wrote:It says to remove all counters when the unit has been destroyed (read: all models have been removed as casualties) as well, though. And we know that EL contradicts that one.

Not if it is part of the unit.

Monster Rain wrote:
Also, the attached IC doesn't count for allowing the unit to make RP rolls, so he's no longer part of the unit at that point either, it would seem.

That isnt a logical conclusion. Nothing indicates this has anything to unit ownership at all.

It doesnt alter that you lack permission to save the unit, EVEN WITH the FAQ, because the FAQ does not specify that saving the unit is allowed even against Sweeping Advance

nosferatu1001 wrote:because the FAQ does not specify that saving the unit is allowed even against Sweeping Advance

In before: we did not save it, we rescued it from destruction by SA after SA destroyed it.

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm thinking about how the RP rules say that you remove all of the counters after the last model is removed as a casualty (in the same breath as using the word "destroyed", mind) in stark contrast to the EL rules, and FAQ ruling.

Also, the attached IC doesn't count for allowing the unit to make RP rolls, so he's no longer part of the unit at that point either, it would seem.

Don't the RP rules tell you to remove all counters when the unit makes a Fall Back move?

In addition to what I posted, yes.

It says to remove all counters when the unit has been destroyed (read: all models have been removed as casualties) as well, though. And we know that EL contradicts that one.

Fair enough, but that's because EL has a specific exemption from that particular removal trigger. It doesn't have one from the removal triggered by Fall Back moves, I don't believe. So the fact that EL counters aren't removed when all models are dead isn't actually relevant here; unless we can find something that tells us either that they aren't associated with the unit or that "all counters" only ever means "all RP counters", they'll still be removed at THAT point, and the fact that they would be immune to being removed when all models were removed is immaterial.

"Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it."

In the context of this paragraph, "any counters" mean only the RP counters.

Honestly, Im just going to give it to the necron players at my local. It isnt broken and can be stopped if you consolidate enough to where they cant be placed. Im sure this will be FAQ and im willing to bet that they will give it to them.

There is nothing in EL that lets it come back if it was in a unit when it died, and that unit is no longer around.

Unless I totally missed it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Fair enough, but that's because EL has a specific exemption from that particular removal trigger. It doesn't have one from the removal triggered by Fall Back moves, I don't believe. So the fact that EL counters aren't removed when all models are dead isn't actually relevant here; unless we can find something that tells us either that they aren't associated with the unit or that "all counters" only ever means "all RP counters", they'll still be removed at THAT point, and the fact that they would be immune to being removed when all models were removed is immaterial.

I guess what I'm failing to understand here is why, in the absence of specificity, you are drawing this conclusion instead of what can reasonably be inferred from the EL rules and the relevant FAQ entries that the EL model's reanimation is related to the location of its token and not the unit to which it was attached.

copper.talos wrote:"Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it."

In the context of this paragraph, "any counters" mean only the RP counters.

This is not true, since EL counters are placed instead of RP counters.

kirsanth wrote:There is nothing in EL that lets it come back if it was in a unit when it died, and that unit is no longer around.

Unless I totally missed it.

Right, that part is in the FAQ.

Monster Rain wrote:Right, that part is in the FAQ.

Thanks, I knew I had even posted that earlier.

Work is getting in the way of my toys!

Technically, the FAQ only references a unit that was "wiped out". Now, if only we knew if GW meant Destroyed and Wiped Out were exactly the same.

"Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it."

The 1st sentence tell how to place counters. Not RP counters. Should I be placing EL counters then? Do I get to choose? In the 1st sentence I am told how to place RP counters, in the 2nd sentence a reason to remove them.

Happyjew wrote:Technically, the FAQ only references a unit that was "wiped out". Now, if only we knew if GW meant Destroyed and Wiped Out were exactly the same.

It's been shown at least two times in this very thread that they can be the same.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I don't see that the rule says anything, however, about effects which encompass the whole unit as a singular entity, rather than affecting all its pieces individually. The unit, as an entity, still includes the dead IC; that's what the Rez Orb ruling told us. Given that, anything that affects the whole unit should affect him, too; including removing tokens that are associated with him.

The last paragraph in the RP rules doesn't fit with that interpretation, though, does it?

I think it does. As I said before, I don't have access to the Codex, so I can't peruse the exact wording right now.

If someone could quote the rule here it would be helpful; but it's been discussed quite a lot by this point, and I haven't yet seen anything that contradicts my argument. Are you thinking of something in specific?

I'm basing this piece of the argument on the FAQ ruling on Rez Orbs, not the RP rule itself, by the way.

From some of your comments It is obvious you don't have access to the codex and so this debate has gotten completely out of hand. You are actually questioning the difference between RP and EL counters. You suggested as have others that may have been led astray by you that when doing a fall back move, EL counters are removed. RP counters are removed when the unit is wiped out, EL counters are not. This is the entire basis of how EL works!

This is very obvious if you would just read the rules in question. How the counters are placed and removed are handled completely separately.

RP rules do not mention EL counters!

RP from the EL rules: "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter."

Do you see anything in that sentence about how to remove a counter or fall back moves? Because there is nothing relating the two.

If you don't have the rules in front of you unless you have memorized them word for word, please do not comment as we have just had about a page of debate over some points that are plain as day if you have the codex in front of you.

MR I did not say can mean the same. I said were exactly the same. Slight difference.

@ Nemesor Dave:

In fairness, he may have had access to the rules at the time that we began this dance, and had to go to school or work or something.

That's what I'm assuming happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:MR I did not say can mean the same. I said were exactly the same. Slight difference.

Right, but since they are used interchangeably at times I don't know if there's a definitive answer.

My brain hurts.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
From some of your comments It is obvious you don't have access to the codex and so this debate has gotten completely out of hand. You are actually questioning the difference between RP and EL counters. You suggested as have others that may have been led astray by you that when doing a fall back move, EL counters are removed. RP counters are removed when the unit is wiped out, EL counters are not. This is the entire basis of how EL works!

This is very obvious if you would just read the rules in question. How the counters are placed and removed are handled completely separately.

RP rules do not mention EL counters!

RP from the EL rules: "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter."

Do you see anything in that sentence about how to remove a counter or fall back moves? Because there is nothing relating the two.

If you don't have the rules in front of you unless you have memorized them word for word, please do not comment as we have just had about a page of debate over some points that are plain as day if you have the codex in front of you.

Sigh.

If you had actually read my posts, you would have noticed that I never, at any time, have argued that EL counters are the same thing as RP counters.

That does not change the fact that the RP rules state that 'all counters' are removed when the unit Falls Back.

Not all RP counters.

All counters.

If an EL counter is a counter (which it is), then in the absence of something SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY exempting EL counters from that requirement, they are removed whenever the unit Falls Back; and since any unit which suffers a Sweeping Advance has necessarily Fallen Back immediately prior, that would mean that by the time Sweeping Advance ever becomes an issue, the EL counter is already gone.

Now, as I pointed out earlier, there are two ways you can argue against this; either EL counters aren't associated with the unit, or the RP rule is referring only to RP counters. Proving either assertion will be satisfactory. And now that you have my actual argument in front of you, instead of your strawman, you can work on actually making a counter-argument.

Monster Rain wrote:I guess what I'm failing to understand here is why, in the absence of specificity, you are drawing this conclusion instead of what can reasonably be inferred from the EL rules and the relevant FAQ entries that the EL model's reanimation is related to the location of its token and not the unit to which it was attached.

Well, that's what the whole debate here is about, isn't it? We have rules and FAQ rulings indicating both that EL is associated with the unit AND that it's associated with the counter. The interpretation I'm presenting is, I argue, the only logical way to reconcile said rulings without voiding one or the other. We can't simply ignore rules; we have to find some way to make them work together. So I'm presenting a possibility, and then looking to see if logical holes can be poked in it. I don't think there have been any so far.

Happyjew wrote:MR I did not say can mean the same. I said were exactly the same. Slight difference.

As we have shown here, wiped out can mean destroyed, but destroyed does not mean wiped out.

Destroy is the fruit, wipe out is the apple. A point ND appears to ignore

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That does not change the fact that the RP rules state that 'all counters' are removed when the unit Falls Back.

Not all RP counters.

All counters.

The only problem with this argument, is there are other things that use counters. Wounds suffered for Multi-wound models. Marking which unit is under the effects of HfH rule. So unfortunately, "any counters" cannot literally mean any counters attached to the unit.
Please note however, I do agree that "any counters" means all RP and EL counters.

Edited based on new information below.

@BeRzErKeR

"All counters" is wrong

From the RP rule "Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it."

In the 1st sentence you are said to place counters and in the unit. The 2nd sentence gives you a reason to remove counters from the unit. In the given context those counters RP counters.

Furthermore RP counters are the only counters placed to the unit. EL counters are placed on the table. A significant difference.

copper.talos wrote:Furthermore RP counters are the only counters placed to the unit. EL counters are placed on the table. A significant difference.

Significant, and definitive in my opinion.

How do you place a counter to a unit?

You need to re-read the rules if you're asking that question.

kirsanth wrote:

copper.talos wrote: If they were to be the exactly the same, then there wouldn't be a need for 2 kinds of counters.

The rule for RP simply says counters BECAUSE they are different.

If it had said RP counters, you would be 100% undeniably correct.

It doesn't. You are not.

Editing to add:
This is like my uber-vindication of my "utterly absurd" stance on Warp Time.
It said "all" because it meant it.

Without a qualifier, "counters" means "all counters".

Sorry this is wrong. The RP rules talk about RP counters only and no mention is made of EL counters yet. This falls under Reanimation Protocols.

In the Ever-Living section it says how to place and remove Ever-Living counters. At the end of this phase roll for EL like you would roll for RP. Otherwise EL has its own rules for when and how to remove EL counters and they are completely different than RP counters. Specifically they are not removed under any of the conditions that RP counters are removed except for failed rolls.

I would guess you didn't read the rules or haven't seen the page in the codex to have such an obvious question. Please read it again.

There may be room for debate and some ambiguity, but this is not where its at.

Yeah, it was a joke.

Happyjew wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That does not change the fact that the RP rules state that 'all counters' are removed when the unit Falls Back.

Not all RP counters.

All counters.

The only problem with this argument, is there are other things that use counters. Wounds suffered for Multi-wound models. Marking which unit is under the effects of HfH rule. So unfortunately, "all counters" cannot literally mean all counters attached to the unit.
Please note however, I do agree that "all counters" means all RP and EL counters.

Copper has the right of it though (which supports my context argument).

To quote, "If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the phase. Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters (NOTE: this does not say RP counters*) or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy."

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

In my opinion it seem that, given the context under which the Reanimation Protocols are read, they are referring to RP counters, both in their placement and removal.

*added by me.

-Yad

Happyjew wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That does not change the fact that the RP rules state that 'all counters' are removed when the unit Falls Back.

Not all RP counters.

All counters.

The only problem with this argument, is there are other things that use counters. Wounds suffered for Multi-wound models. Marking which unit is under the effects of HfH rule. So unfortunately, "all counters" cannot literally mean all counters attached to the unit.
Please note however, I do agree that "all counters" means all RP and EL counters.

No, saying that 'all counters' means 'all RP and EL counters' I can't see an argument for. That would be very tidy, but I don't think it's supported.

I think it DOES mean 'all counters', literally. And yes, that means you remove all those other counters, too, which fortunately has no effect on the game. Wound counters, for instance, are not actually wounds; removing them does not magically restore lost wounds. And you can put them back immediately; they have no in-game effect, simply being a way to help you keep track of wounds received.

copper.talos wrote:@BeRzErKeR

"All counters" is wrong

From the RP rule "Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it."

In the 1st sentence you are said to place counters and in the unit. The 2nd sentence gives you a reason to remove counters from the unit. In the given context those counters RP counters.

Furthermore RP counters are the only counters placed to the unit. EL counters are placed on the table. A significant difference.

The first sentence tells you to place a specific type of counter. The second sentence tells you to remove all counters. There isn't any limit attached to what kinds of counters you're removing; reading the rule literally, yes, you have to remove 'all counters'. It would have been very easy to write 'all Resurrection Protocol counters' or something similar, but that isn't what's on the page and so it isn't the rule we have to follow.

Your second point has to be thought about a bit more carefully. RP counters are placed "next to the unit". EL counters are placed where the model with EL died. That's certainly a difference in placement.

But if you'll look back over the last two pages, you'll notice that MR and I have already been talking about exactly this point. The question is whether EL counters are associated with the unit, or not; if they are, they have to be removed when the unit Falls Back, while if they aren't, they don't. But given the precedent of the Necron FAQ (indicating that models which are dead are still part of the unit) I'm arguing that they ARE attached to the unit.

My position (to paraphrase myself) is that EL never gives the character permission to leave the unit; what it does is create a situation under which the UNIT can leave the CHARACTER, ie by all models in the unit being killed. EL tokens have a specific exemption that allows them to remain on the table even though 'all counters' are removed when the last model of the unit is (I will note that this supports the interpretation that 'all counters' means 'all counters', not 'all RP counters'; if it only meant RP counters, there would be no need for this exemption); clearly, at this point, the token is still considered to be associated with the unit. That MUST mean that any effect which affects the unit as an entity (like removing counters when Falling Back) still affects the dead IC and his EL token.

Since you take the "any counters" at face value to remove all the counters on it, then take the "any counters from it" at face value too, and remove only the counters that you were explicitely told to place on the unit.

copper.talos wrote:Since you take the "any counters" at face value to remove all the counters on it, then take the "any counters from it" at face value too, and remove only the counters that you were explicitely told to place on the unit.

Sorry, I don't follow. What am I not taking at face value?

There are counters present. I am told to remove any of them which are associated with the unit. I then remove each and every counter which is associated with the unit.

The most logical answer would be to remove any counter which represented a model which was part of the unit before it died. This includes EL counters. Since there is no rule which, in this situation, keeps EL counters on the board (though there is for a different situation), I remove them as well as all the RP counters.

The answer which I have just been presenting rules support for is to remove all counters which represent models that are part of the unit. Since the FAQ lets us know that attached ICs which have been RFPaaC are still part of the unit, this is exactly the same answer as above.

Your answer seems to be "remove all of one specific type of counter which are associated with the unit, ignoring other types of counter", and while I don't want to seem rude, I'm just not seeing any rules backing for that. I don't believe that fulfills the rules. You were told to remove all counters, and you haven't.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The RP rules talk about RP counters only and no mention is made of EL counters yet. This falls under Reanimation Protocols.

This is misguided. No mention is made of EL counters, but there is indeed mention of both RP counters, and counters. Then the next section explains another type of counter that is has rules referencing that previous section.

Nemesor Dave wrote:I would guess you didn't read the rules or haven't seen the page in the codex to have such an obvious question.

I would write the same, but it comes across as rude.

Nemesor Dave wrote:There may be room for debate and some ambiguity, but this is not where its at.

Then drop it.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Your answer seems to be "remove all of one specific type of counter which are associated with the unit, ignoring other types of counter", and while I don't want to seem rude, I'm just not seeing any rules backing for that. I don't believe that fulfills the rules. You were told to remove all counters, and you haven't.

The rules backing for that is that EL haven't yet entered the context when "remove all counters" is brought up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:MR I did not say can mean the same. I said were exactly the same. Slight difference.

As we have shown here, wiped out can mean destroyed, but destroyed does not mean wiped out.

Destroy is the fruit, wipe out is the apple. A point ND appears to ignore

This has already been decided, but maybe you missed it.

Against destroyed meaning the exact same thing as wiped out
1. a single sentence in the rule book that only mentions wiped out which in context could mean destroyed but you claim it doesn't.
2. some rhymes about fruit that you made up

For destroyed meaning exactly the same thing as wiped out:
1. a single sentence in the rule book that only mentions wiped out but in a way that could mean destroyed.
2. a dictionary quote and common English usage (oops)
3. No contextual rule that would imply a separate condition a unit can be in
4. No description of "wiped out" as a major section in the rule book explaining a difference between the two
5. A LETTER FROM GW SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME.

Will you ever admit you're wrong?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:MR I did not say can mean the same. I said were exactly the same. Slight difference.

As we have shown here, wiped out can mean destroyed, but destroyed does not mean wiped out.

Destroy is the fruit, wipe out is the apple. A point ND appears to ignore

This has already been decided, but maybe you missed it.

Against destroyed meaning the exact same thing as wiped out
1. a single sentence in the rule book that only mentions wiped out which in context could mean destroyed but you claim it doesn't.
2. some rhymes about fruit that you made up

For destroyed meaning exactly the same thing as wiped out:
1. a single sentence in the rule book that only mentions wiped out but in a way that could mean destroyed.
2. a dictionary quote and common English usage (oops)
3. No contextual rule that would imply a separate condition a unit can be in
4. No description of "wiped out" as a major section in the rule book explaining a difference between the two
5. A LETTER FROM GW SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME.

Will you ever admit you're wrong?

You forgot in the RP rules, where destroyed is used in the same context as removing every model in a unit as a casualty.

Or destroyed is cranberries, or something.

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Your answer seems to be "remove all of one specific type of counter which are associated with the unit, ignoring other types of counter", and while I don't want to seem rude, I'm just not seeing any rules backing for that. I don't believe that fulfills the rules. You were told to remove all counters, and you haven't.

The rules backing for that is that EL haven't yet entered the context when "remove all counters" is brought up.

That is an assumption, not a rules backing. Especially since it specifies RP counters at some points.

And that area of rules is referenced by another section that uses counters.

#5 isn't worth bringing up - and is actually against one of the tenets (but since dictionary definitions were used, it's not worth objecting to on that basis alone)

Wow... double ninjaed. Was responding to ND's post above.

kirsanth wrote:That is an assumption, not a rules backing. Especially since it specifies RP counters at some points.

And that area of rules is referenced by another section that uses counters.

I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Monster Rain wrote:I think it's a reasonable assumption.

It is. It is more reasonable to assume "all counters" means "all counters" than to assume they forgot a word just the times that it would matter for this.

Very much like Warptime.

You are told only to remove the counters from the unit. The only counters placed on the unit are the RP counters. The placement of EL counters is independent of the unit.

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:Your answer seems to be "remove all of one specific type of counter which are associated with the unit, ignoring other types of counter", and while I don't want to seem rude, I'm just not seeing any rules backing for that. I don't believe that fulfills the rules. You were told to remove all counters, and you haven't.

The rules backing for that is that EL haven't yet entered the context when "remove all counters" is brought up.

How so?

I'm not trying to be snippy, here. I genuinely don't understand the argument you're making. Specific types of counters don't HAVE to 'enter the context'. You have an instruction, on paper, black and white; "remove all counters". If there is a counter, associated with the unit, which you have not removed after Falling Back, you have not fulfilled that instruction.

Now, there can be exceptions made, certainly. But those exceptions need to be called out. EL does that, once; RP tells you to remove all counters when all the models in the unit are removed, and EL tells you that doesn't apply to EL counters. But that exception is not made when you're talking about the consequences of Falling Back, and since it isn't made it doesn't exist.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think it's a reasonable assumption.

It is. It is more reasonable to assume "all counters" means "all counters" than to assume they forgot a word just the times that it would matter for this.

Very much like Warptime.

Oh my Gosh, let's not bring up that Warptime travesty.

I actually think it's more of a stretch to think that something in the RP rules are referring to something that hasn't been talked about yet.

copper.talos wrote:You are told only to remove the counters from the unit.

So long as I do not squint so hard when reading, I am only removing counters from that unit. No other unit added counters that unit needs to have removed from them.

Monster Rain wrote:

Or destroyed is cranberries, or something.

More good signature material here

-Yad

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm not trying to be snippy, here. I genuinely don't understand the argument you're making. Specific types of counters don't HAVE to 'enter the context'. You have an instruction, on paper, black and white; "remove all counters". If there is a counter, associated with the unit, which you have not removed after Falling Back, you have not fulfilled that instruction.

You remove all counters from the unit, not from the table.

Monster Rain wrote:Oh my Gosh, let's not bring up that Warptime travesty.

I actually think it's more of a stretch to think that something in the RP rules are referring to something that hasn't been talked about yet.

I have to [mention WarpTime], I was the guy saying "all" meant "all" that time too.

Sweeping Advance does that-mentioning rules that do not exist yet.

It is not odd in the game.

copper.talos wrote:You are told only to remove the counters from the unit. The only counters placed on the unit are the RP counters. The placement of EL counters is independent of the unit.

That's what I called Argument 2, then; EL counters are not associated with the unit.

All I can say to that is, please prove it. You aren't told to remove all counters placed with the unit; you are told to remove all counters from the unit. I suppose we could now have an argument about what 'from' means in this context, though I'd really rather not; I interpret that sentence to mean "remove all counters associated with this unit".

Assuming you concur with this interpretation, what you need to do in order to exempt EL counters from that is demonstrate that they are not associated with the unit, despite the fact that they're associated with a model that is part of the unit. If you have a different interpretation, then of course you'll reach a different conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm not trying to be snippy, here. I genuinely don't understand the argument you're making. Specific types of counters don't HAVE to 'enter the context'. You have an instruction, on paper, black and white; "remove all counters". If there is a counter, associated with the unit, which you have not removed after Falling Back, you have not fulfilled that instruction.

You remove all counters from the unit, not from the table.

See above.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Your answer seems to be "remove all of one specific type of counter which are associated with the unit, ignoring other types of counter", and while I don't want to seem rude, I'm just not seeing any rules backing for that. I don't believe that fulfills the rules. You were told to remove all counters, and you haven't.

In the same section under Reanimation Protocols it also says "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit (passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Clearly it is not talking about EL counters. Only RP counters or EL would be entirely meaningless. EL counters have not been mentioned in the book yet.

You actually have so much completely wrong its like you're reading a different rulebook. I'm not even talking about whether or not you agree that you can roll for EL when the unit has been swept.

Please read the necron codex.

Allow me to quote some tents for you Nemesor (with some emphasis in case you missed it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:2. a dictionary quote and common English usage (oops)

Lorek wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

So that debunks that argument.

Nemesor Dave wrote:5. A LETTER FROM GW SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME.

Lorek wrote:2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

I'm assuming you meant an e-mail from the FAQ team. If it was in fact a letter then it fails to meet the requirements for official source.

Nemesor Dave wrote:I would guess you didn't read the rules

I can probably say the same thing as you. And I will be the first to admit I tried to use a real world example comparing wiped out and destruction to apples and fruit. Shame on me.

BeRzErKeR wrote:All I can say to that is, please prove it.

Does the FAQ not prove it sufficiently?

I genuinely think it does.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

In the same section under Reanimation Protocols it also says "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit (passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Ok. And?

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Clearly it is not talking about EL counters. Only RP counters or EL would be entirely meaningless. EL counters have not been mentioned in the book yet.

Point one: Uh, no. You roll for EL in exactly the same way as you roll for RP, remember? Which can be perfectly legitimately read to indicate that you roll at the same time. There's no problem here. You make all the rolls (RP and EL both); then you remove all the counters. Done.

Point two: The fact that EL counters haven't been mentioned yet honestly doesn't matter. It doesn't change the meaning of the words on the page in the slightest. This is YMDC: we're not discussing intent and we're not discussing what a rule should mean, we're discussing the words on the page.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
You actually have so much completely wrong its like you're reading a different rulebook. I'm not even talking about whether or not you agree that you can roll for EL when the unit has been swept.

Please read the necron codex.

This isn't actually an argument, or indeed a refutation of anything.

When you can make an argument, with quotes, which supports your interpretation of the rules, I'll be happy to listen to it. Saying "Go read the codex again", however, is not one, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't affect either what I do or what the rules say in the slightest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:All I can say to that is, please prove it.

Does the FAQ not prove it sufficiently?

I genuinely think it does.

Didn't we talk about that a couple pages ago? We were actually having a much more civil discussion then, it seemed. Ah. . . back in the good old days. . .

Anyway, I think I've answered this point a few times now, and I have yet to receive a refutation.

EDIT: Removed unnecessary antagonism.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

copper.talos wrote:You are told only to remove the counters from the unit. The only counters placed on the unit are the RP counters. The placement of EL counters is independent of the unit.

That's what I called Argument 2, then; EL counters are not associated with the unit.

All I can say to that is, please prove it. You aren't told to remove all counters placed with the unit; you are told to remove all counters from the unit. I suppose we could now have an argument about what 'from' means in this context, though I'd really rather not; I interpret that sentence to mean "remove all counters associated with this unit".

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check and risk falling back thereby losing those counters before I have a chance to roll for them at the end of the phase. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My head hurts.

Yad wrote:

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check or risk falling back and losing those counters. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Oh my Gosh, let's not bring up that Warptime travesty.

I actually think it's more of a stretch to think that something in the RP rules are referring to something that hasn't been talked about yet.

I have to [mention WarpTime], I was the guy saying "all" meant "all" that time too.

Sweeping Advance does that-mentioning rules that do not exist yet.

It is not odd in the game.

If you're looking in the Reanimation Protocols section and you want indicators for whether "all counters" is all RP counters or both RP and EL counters, look for mention that the paragraph subject is Reanimation Protocols.
"If a model with Reanimation Protocols is removed..."
"...place counters..."
"...remove all counters..."

Next paragraph:
"...roll a d6 for each Reanimation Protocols counter..."
"...that has not itself returned from Reanimation Protocols..."
"...Reanimation Protocols cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed....remove all your counters
"..for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols..."
"..is not sufficient to allow a Reanimation Protocols roll so remove any remaining counters."
"Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit (passed or failed) remove all your counters."

Almost ever other sentence specifies RP and EL only say to roll is done the same as RP - self repair on a 5 or 6. "Any counters" is used specifically in regards to EL counters. There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Almost ever other sentence specifies RP and EL only say to roll is done the same as RP - self repair on a 5 or 6. "Any counters" is used specifically in regards to EL counters. There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

I've been chewing on this for a while, but I couldn't but it any better than this.

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check or risk falling back and losing those counters. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

I would agree with this. i still think you're wrong regarding the removal of counters due to a completed fall back move though

-Yad

kirsanth wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

QFT.

They don't need to specify EL counters; they already said "all counters". "All counters" is logically equivalent to "every counter of [list of every type of counter possible in the game]". That's what it means. The fact that it appears in a paragraph dealing with a specific type of counter doesn't change that in any way.

All means all. It doesn't mean 'all of one specific type'. It doesn't mean 'all, except for this type'. It means all. If it meant something else, it would BE something else. "All RP counters" would work to mean what you're claiming is meant, but that isn't what's said.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check or risk falling back and losing those counters. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

From the necron codex: "Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken."

Its a reminder marker. To remind you. Its not a placeholder model, or a new model, or part of the unit, in association, or any of this stuff you're saying.

A suitable marker to remind you.

Edit: removed unnecessary emphasis

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

I would agree with this. i still think you're wrong regarding the removal of counters due to a completed fall back move though

-Yad

Meh, fair enough. . . still don't know what your reasoning there is, though. Since I have laid out my logic, what part of it do you disagree with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

From the necron codex: "Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken."

Its a reminder marker. To remind you. Its not a placeholder model, or a new model, or part of the unit, in association, or any of this stuff you're saying.

A suitable marker to remind you.

Read. The. RP. Rules. Then. Comment.

Read. What. I'm. Actually. Saying. Rather. Than. Making. Assumptions. Then. Respond.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

QFT.

They don't need to specify EL counters; they already said "all counters". "All counters" is logically equivalent to "every counter of [list of every type of counter possible in the game]". That's what it means. The fact that it appears in a paragraph dealing with a specific type of counter doesn't change that in any way.

All means all. It doesn't mean 'all of one specific type'. It doesn't mean 'all, except for this type'. It means all. If it meant something else, it would BE something else. "All RP counters" would work to mean what you're claiming is meant, but that isn't what's said.

Context. It may be impossible to argue this point without allowing for context.

Edit: phrased this a bit nicer

Nemesor Dave wrote:Read. The. RP. Rules. Then. Comment.

It's funny because he said essentially the exact same thing you did.

Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I did not go anywhere near that.

I went to snark, at worst.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

I would agree with this. i still think you're wrong regarding the removal of counters due to a completed fall back move though

-Yad

Meh, fair enough. . . still don't know what your reasoning there is, though. Since I have laid out my logic, what part of it do you disagree with?

This is why.

To quote, "If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the phase. Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters (NOTE: this does not say RP counters*) or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy."

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

In my opinion it seems that, given the context under which the Reanimation Protocols are read, they are referring to RP counters, both in their placement and removal.

*added by me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

I disagree. If you're familiar with how firewall rules work then I can explain it this way, if not, then don't bother reading this

On one side of the firewall I have the complete set of RP rules and on the other side I have the EL rules. There is no 'allow' 'any:any' in the firewall rule-base. Instead, there is a rule whose source is EL and destination is the rule concerning RP rolling. There is a second rule whose source is EL and destination is the RP rule concerning returning a model to a unit. There are no other rules that allow EL to connect to RP. Everything else is deny.

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Context. There is this thing called context. If you don't believe in context then the entire rulebook falls apart. You can't function in your day and certainly no argument I could ever propose would change in the slightest any preconceived idea you may hold.

I certainly believe in using the context of a statement as an interpretive aid; in many cases it's invaluable. Unfortunately, when it comes to a conflict between what context may indicate and what the black-letter writing on the page states, context loses.

You are trying to apply an interpretive tool, used to help one determine which of multiple distinct and equally accurate meanings is appropriate in a given situation, to a rule which is perfectly, utterly clear, and does not require interpretation in the slightest. The word 'all' has one and only one meaning. It cannot mean anything else, and never does, regardless of what context it appears in. Claiming that by considering the context you can interpret 'all' to mean something that is not all-inclusive is, frankly, a lie. All means all; all the context in the word will never, and can never, change that. Period.

If you don't believe that a rule, or indeed ANYTHING, means "all x" when it says "all x", then you and I have very different views of the English language, and you're right; we will never agree.

I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:There is no 'allow' 'any:any' in the firewall rule-base.

Doesn't the lack of a rule allow that, or am I thinking backwards again?

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I did not go anywhere near that.

I went to snark, at worst.

Yikes, I didn't mean that to sound so harsh. An yes on re-read I think BeRzErKeR and I are saying the same thing on this. The ironic thing about this is that at my gaming club I was for removing EL counters from swept units.

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I would agree.

It can be frustrating when people aren't seeing things your way, but if you find yourself actually getting angry about it maybe a break would be a good idea.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I would agree.

It can be frustrating when people aren't seeing things your way, but if you find yourself actually getting angry about it maybe a break would be a good idea.

So shall we agree to disagree, have a MOD lock the thread, and then in 3 or 4 days when someone asks a similar question get back into the fight?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Context. There is this thing called context. If you don't believe in context then the entire rulebook falls apart. You can't function in your day and certainly no argument I could ever propose would change in the slightest any preconceived idea you may hold.

You are trying to apply an interpretive tool, used to help one determine which of multiple distinct and equally accurate meanings is appropriate in a given situation, to a rule which is perfectly, utterly clear, and does not require interpretation in the slightest. The word 'all' has one and only one meaning. It cannot mean anything else, and never does, regardless of what context it appears in. Claiming that by considering the context you can interpret 'all' to mean something that is not all-inclusive is, frankly, a lie. All means all; all the context in the word will never, and can never, change that. Period.

Just to clarify, in the RP rules it's actually 'any' not 'all'. And I would actually agree with what you just said here. But I don't think it applies to the RP rules for two reasons.

1.) The first paragraph in the RP rules concerning the placement and removal (from a fall back move) both use counters. Not RP counters.

2.) 3rd paragraph RP rules, "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This runs counter to the EL rules which allow the EL counter to remain. This may be a case of specific over general, but I don't think so. I think that given the context the reference to counters in the RP rules is always to RP counters.

-Yad

The thing that you said that got me thinking, Yad, is that every character with EL has RP too.

Which is to say there are no characters that ONLY use EL rules - just the counters.

That is another reason for the (deliberate) ambiguity.

Yad wrote:

This is why.

To quote, "If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the phase. Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters (NOTE: this does not say RP counters*) or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy."

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

In my opinion it seems that, given the context under which the Reanimation Protocols are read, they are referring to RP counters, both in their placement and removal.

*added by me.

Ah, I see. You posted that a page back, and I don't believe I ever responded to it.

My answer to you is basically the same as my answer to ND, though a bit more detailed. 'All' or 'any' does not denote a closed set; it indicates a superset, which includes everything of a certain type. If more members or another subset are added at a later time, they will still fall under the superset. If you want to think of it this way, as soon as more members are added to a set, the list which contains every member of that set expands to include them. The word 'any' references that list.

The rules in a codex are not time-limited; that is, they don't necessarily occur in sequence, and certainly not in the sequence in which they appear in the book. Rather, they are all interacting more or less simultaneously on the tabletop, and they must all be considered together, without consideration for where in the book they are coming from.

The argument you and ND seem to be putting forward (please correct me if I have this wrong) is that when you read the Necron codex, you are introduced to the superset of 'any counters' at the same time as the subset 'Resurrection Protocols counters', and at a different time than the subset 'Ever-living counters'. You two then claim that this indicates that 'any counters' refers only to the subset of counters which are introduced concurrently. My point is that, logically, that's not accurate; 'any counters' MUST, necessarily, include everything which is a counter. Since we are told that the Ever-living rule places counters, we know that 'Ever-living counters' exist; since we know they're counters, they must be a subset of 'any counters'; and that means that the line 'remove any counters from it' must include Ever-living counters, simply because of what 'any' means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

Just to clarify, in the RP rules it's actually 'any' not 'all'. And I would actually agree with what you just said here. But I don't think it applies to the RP rules for two reasons.

1.) The first paragraph in the RP rules concerning the placement and removal (from a fall back move) both use counters. Not RP counters.

2.) 3rd paragraph RP rules, "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This runs counter to the EL rules which allow the EL counter to remain. This may be a case of specific over general, but I don't think so. I think that given the context the reference to counters in the RP rules is always to RP counters.

-Yad

Yep, you're correct about any vs. all; I've been using 'all' just because it was the word being tossed around. It doesn't change the meaning any.

The Ever-living exception is indeed a case of specific vs. general. 'Ever-living counters' are more specific than 'any counters'.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I would agree.

It can be frustrating when people aren't seeing things your way, but if you find yourself actually getting angry about it maybe a break would be a good idea.

Ahh, no worries, I'm not mad just overly sarcastic with a bit too much emphasis. You can't get too bothered, at least they removed phase out.

love when GW make a FAQ that does not resolve gak

kirsanth wrote:I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!

Actually Crypteks, Lord, and such have both Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. However, the EL rules trump the RP ones. 1st line of the EL 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 the model was removed from play.

@BeRzErKeR: Yep, I do agree that counters are 'added to' a unit, but do not affect the properties of the unit (i.e., unit size, etc).

kirsanth wrote:IAutomatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:There is no 'allow' 'any:any' in the firewall rule-base.

Doesn't the lack of a rule allow that, or am I thinking backwards again?

Yeah, if I were to continue the firewall analogy then I would say that in a permissive ruleset there are your 'allows' which are then always followed by a 'deny all:all'.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!

Actually Crypteks, Lord, and such have both Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. However, the EL rules trump the RP ones. 1st line of the EL 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 the model was removed from play.

That only tells you which counter to use.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!

Actually Crypteks, Lord, and such have both Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. However, the EL rules trump the RP ones. 1st line of the EL 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 the model was removed from play.

That only tells you which counter to use.

And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cripes, I think this thread might actually get me to 400 posts

-Yad

Yad wrote:And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

This is where I think you are missing it. They have both rules, they use them both, but one says to use a different counter.

Yad wrote:

And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

-Yad

The problem with this whole analogy, though, is that you don't have two independent rule-sets. You've got one ruleset, ie the rules of Warhammer 40k, and then a multi-tiered hierarchy leading down, eventually, to Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. I refer you back to the point I made a couple posts ago about sets and super-sets.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but I have to log out and close my browser if I'm ever going to get this homework done.

I expect a resolution when I return!

Monster Rain wrote:I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but I have to log out and close my browser if I'm ever going to get this homework done.

I expect a resolution when I return!

No pressure, or anything. . . .

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

-Yad

The problem with this whole analogy, though, is that you don't have two independent rule-sets. You've got one ruleset, ie the rules of Warhammer 40k, and then a multi-tiered hierarchy leading down, eventually, to Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. I refer you back to the point I made a couple posts ago about sets and super-sets.

I don't think that level of 'sophistication' for lack of a better term is required to follow the RP and EL rules though. It really does boil down to context for me. The Reanimation Protocols rules only care about Reanimation Protocol counters. I think at this point I would need a FAQ entry to state that, "when removing counters from a Necron unit that has completed a fall back move, remove both the RP counters as well as the EL counters."

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

This is where I think you are missing it. They have both rules, they use them both, but one says to use a different counter.

Yes, an Overlord has both RP and EL. The Overlord will follow the EL rules and only use the RP rules to determine what dice to roll and how to interpret the result. The Overlord will also use the RP rules to determine how return to play if, and only if, he was attached to a unit at the time he was removed as a casualty.

Other differences between EL and RP:

1.) Placement of counter
2.) Returning the model to play if the model was not a member of a unit when it was removed as a casualty


-Yad

Yad wrote:

I don't think that level of 'sophistication' for lack of a better term is required to follow the RP and EL rules though. It really does boil down to context for me. I think at this point I would need a FAQ entry to state that, "when removing counters from a Necron unit that has completed a fall back move, remove both the RP counters as well as the EL counters."

-Yad

Fair enough. I would like to point something out, though; try going through the BRB and writing out a summary of the rules. I'm willing to wager anything you like that you can't make the rules in a single section function without referencing rules in at least one other section; and those rules that you referenced ALSO can't function without referencing something else, until eventually you wind your way all the back to the very basics; the Characteristic rules, and the rules governing the different phases of the game.

My point here is that 40k are never, and cannot be, hermetically sealed. They are written in exactly the style I'm describing; general rules which cover basics, followed by progressively more and more specific rules which tell you what exactly to do in different situations, and carve out exceptions from the general rules. This is why the interaction of specific vs. general rules works the way it does; without this organization,you cannot determine which rule takes precedence. The rules of a game must necessarily be arranged hierarchically, because you have to be able to look 'up the tree' to find the general rules and then trace a path down to whatever rules apply to a given situation, or the game doesn't function.

Unless I portrayed your argument inaccurately in that big post about sets, you do still have to deal with the issue. Saying that 'context' gets you out of following what the rule says is, well. . . it seems like handwaving to me. You still haven't explained how exactly it is that the context makes 'any' mean 'Resurrection Protocols', and that's what the argument you seem to be making would require.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

I don't think that level of 'sophistication' for lack of a better term is required to follow the RP and EL rules though. It really does boil down to context for me. I think at this point I would need a FAQ entry to state that, "when removing counters from a Necron unit that has completed a fall back move, remove both the RP counters as well as the EL counters."

-Yad

Fair enough. I would like to point something out, though; try going through the BRB and writing out a summary of the rules. I'm willing to wager anything you like that you can't make the rules in a single section function without referencing rules in at least one other section; and those rules that you referenced ALSO can't function without referencing something else, until eventually you wind your way all the back to the very basics; the Characteristic rules, and the rules governing the different phases of the game.

My point here is that 40k are never, and cannot be, hermetically sealed. They are written in exactly the style I'm describing; general rules which cover basics, followed by progressively more and more specific rules which tell you what exactly to do in different situations, and carve out exceptions from the general rules. This is why the interaction of specific vs. general rules works the way it does; without this organization,you cannot determine which rule takes precedence. The rules of a game must necessarily be arranged hierarchically, because you have to be able to look 'up the tree' to find the general rules and then trace a path down to whatever rules apply to a given situation, or the game doesn't function.

I absolutely agree with you here. I didn't mean imply that I think each rule mechanic in the game is completely independent from the other. For example, in RP we need to understand what a 'phase' is, what a Moral Check is, what is meant by engaged, etc. You absolutely need to reference those other parts of the rulebook to make RP work. that doesn't mean though that you can ignore the context under which the current rule mechanic you're reading is working under. For me, when I read the RP section and it immediately begins to talk about 'placing counters' and 'removing counters' I take this to mean placing [RP] counters and removing [RP] counters. This inference is further reinforced when I read the EL rules and find that they only touch the RP rules to determine how to handle rolling and returning the model.

-Yad




Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's all for me folks, gotta bail.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

I absolutely agree with you here. I didn't mean imply that I think each rule mechanic in the game is completely independent from the other. For example, in RP we need to understand what a 'phase' is, what a Moral Check is, what is meant by engaged, etc. You absolutely need to reference those other parts of the rulebook to make RP work. that doesn't mean though that you can ignore the context under which the current rule mechanic you're reading is working under. For me, when I read the RP section and it immediately begins to talk about 'placing counters' and 'removing counters' I take this to mean placing [RP] counters and removing [RP] counters. This inference is further reinforced when I read the EL rules and find that they only touch the RP rules to determine how to handle rolling and returning the model.

-Yad

But the EL rules specifically note that EL counters are excepted from the requirement in the RP rule to remove 'any counters' when every model in the unit is killed. If we're going to place greater weight on context than text, doesn't that indicate that EL counters are, in fact, included under 'any counters'? If they aren't, then there is no need for that specific exception to be made, because they're automatically excepted. That is certainly another place in which the EL rules and RP rules touch.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

This is where I think you are missing it. They have both rules, they use them both, but one says to use a different counter.

Granting that the order of the sections doesn't matter. We can look individually at each part of the RP rule section and question whether it is meant to include information about handling EL counters.

In the RP section:
RP first paragraph -
1st sentence - RP gives a chance to return to play at the end of the current phase..
2nd sentence - when a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters to track casualties..

If we remove context and don't accept we are talking about RP counters only, couldn't this mean we place EL counters too? Why would you think an EL counter gets placed now? That doesn't make sense so we must only be talking about RP counters.

3rd sentence - "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy"

This doesn't say "all counters" but instead "any counters". Which counters would those be? So far we have only talked about placing RP counters. You could conclude they must mean "any RP counters". So fall back moves for EL is not specified in the rules.

2nd paragraph only specifically mentions rolling for RP counters.

3rd paragraph.
1st sentence - "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters. "

Do you make RP rolls for EL counters? No, so this must mean remove all RP counters.

2nd sentence - Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for purposes of Reanimation Protocols - if a character is the only surivor of a unit, his presence is not sufficient to allow a Reanimation Protocols roll, so remove any remaining counters."

This sentence is about "for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols". Pretty clear we're just talking about RP counters again with "any remaining counters."

3rd sentence - "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit(passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Would you remove EL counters when you pass or fail a RP roll? I don't believe so. This must be only talking about RP counters.

Taking it step by step it's clear to me that the entire section excludes any reference to EL counters.

RP rule " Reanimation protocols may not be be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. - once the last model has been removed as a casualty remove all your counters"

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.


The entire unit got wiped out. That means when the last model got removed as a casualty all the counters were removed. Try to deduce from the RP rule and the faq what counters are removed when "all counters" are mentioned.

copper.talos wrote:RP rule " Reanimation protocols may not be be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. - once the last model has been removed as a casualty remove all your counters"

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.


The entire unit got wiped out. That means when the last model got removed as a casualty all the counters were removed. Try to deduce from the RP rule and the faq what counters are removed when "all counters" are mentioned.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But the EL rules specifically note that EL counters are excepted from the requirement in the RP rule to remove 'any counters' when every model in the unit is killed. If we're going to place greater weight on context than text, doesn't that indicate that EL counters are, in fact, included under 'any counters'? If they aren't, then there is no need for that specific exception to be made, because they're automatically excepted. That is certainly another place in which the EL rules and RP rules touch.

'EL counters' are more specific than 'any counters'. Specific rules take precedence over general. This is evidence of nothing at all.

Nemesor Dave wrote:In the RP section:
RP first paragraph -
1st sentence - RP gives a chance to return to play at the end of the current phase..
2nd sentence - when a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters to track casualties..

If we remove context and don't accept we are talking about RP counters only, couldn't this mean we place EL counters too? Why would you think an EL counter gets placed now? That doesn't make sense so we must only be talking about RP counters.

The phrase 'RP counters' phrase is shorthand for 'the counters placed in accordance with the RP rule'. That being so, any counter you place because of the RP is, by definition, a RP counter and not an EL counter. This argument is invalid.

Nemesor Dave wrote: 3rd sentence - "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy"

This doesn't say "all counters" but instead "any counters". Which counters would those be? So far we have only talked about placing RP counters. You could conclude they must mean "any RP counters". So fall back moves for EL is not specified in the rules.

'Any' still refers to the super-set which includes everything called a counter. You are removing any counters that belong to the unit (paraphrasing here, slightly); that means that you do not have permission to leave any counters. You must remove them all, and since an EL counter is still a counter, that includes removing them, too.

Nemesor Dave wrote:3rd paragraph.
1st sentence - "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters. "

Do you make RP rolls for EL counters? No, so this must mean remove all RP counters.

2nd sentence - Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for purposes of Reanimation Protocols - if a character is the only surivor of a unit, his presence is not sufficient to allow a Reanimation Protocols roll, so remove any remaining counters."

This sentence is about "for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols". Pretty clear we're just talking about RP counters again with "any remaining counters."

3rd sentence - "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit(passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Would you remove EL counters when you pass or fail a RP roll? I don't believe so. This must be only talking about RP counters.

Taking it step by step it's clear to me that the entire section excludes any reference to EL counters.

First; Those two statements are separate. If the unit has been destroyed, you cannot make any Reanimation Protocols rolls - also, remove all your counters.

Second: Since this sentence refers to a situation in which only RP counters have been placed, I agree.

Third: Why not? Once again, you roll for EL exactly like you roll for RP; you make the rolls at the same time, and afterwards you remove any remaining counters, of any kind. There is no problem here.

Taking it step by step, it's quite clear that these rules do, in fact, refer to any counters, just like they say they do, not only RP counters.

copper.talos wrote:RP rule " Reanimation protocols may not be be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. - once the last model has been removed as a casualty remove all your counters"

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.


The entire unit got wiped out. That means when the last model got removed as a casualty all the counters were removed. Try to deduce from the RP rule and the faq what counters are removed when "all counters" are mentioned.

And this is the problem. Nowhere in the EL rules does it state that EL counters are not removed, in the above situation, and neither does the FAQ. The FAQ and the BR in the Necron WD certainly imply that the EL rules state this, and I'm sure that the Devs at GW certainly think it's plainly clear, but it's not explicitly stated anywhere that EL counters remain when RP counters are removed. I'm certainly happy to play it as if it were so, as I believe this was the intent of the rule.

Also, since the term "counter(s)" seems to have a specific in-game definition now, perhaps we should see just how many, and what kinds there are in the BGB and codexes, and what mechanics they have for placement and removal.

BGB Pg.26 "Multiple Wound Models", First column, Second Paragraph wrote: ......Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to them

Wounds are not represented by counters.

Tau Empire Pg 29, Inset "Markerlight wrote: Each time you hit a target unit with a marker light, put a counter by that unit. The counters remain until the end of the current Tau shooting phase or until they are used.

Tau Markerlights use counters, but these are irrelevant because they are removed at the end of any phase they are placed regardless of RP.

I can't think of anything else that has to use something to keep track of it's total in a similar fashion, if anybody else does, would you kindly post the exact rule so we can see precisely what 'counters' there actually are in the game?

Lordhat wrote:

by placing a dice or marker next to them

So a marker is not the same as a counter?