Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I just read this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/425505.page. And by read I mean I made it to page 6 before it devolved into a circular argument. But that thread spoke specifically about ICs joined to units with Reanimation Protocols, or RP.

I have a more specific query that came up in a game the other day. Three independent characters; Nemesor, Obyron, and an Overlord, are joined together as a unit. They are assaulted by a unit of Killa Kans. WS 2 STR 10 prevails, during Init 2 step I kill Nemesor. He places a token. He fails to cause any results. I win combat by 3 (I think thats how many wounds he had). He takes his morale check at -3, and fails. His other two characters run, I pursue, and beat him on an Initiative test. Sweeping advance says I destroy the unit.

Now what happens? All three models have Everliving, or EL. There are three endings to this scenario, and only one of them can be correct. I'm leaning toward number 1, but I've been wrong before.

1.) Does only Nemesor get a EL roll, because he was destroyed prior to the sweeping advance and there is no wording in SA that allows me to remove placed tokens, and the other two do not because they were killed by SA?

2.) Do all three place tokens as they were all destroyed, and all three get attempts at EL roll?

3.) Do none of them get an EL roll, because the unit as a whole was run down by SA?

Keep it civil.

That was exactly covered in that thread. Starting it again here is a bad idea.

Yep, all been covered before and I doubt any new insights will arise from debating this topic again. Suffice to say that I think you're correct playing it as (1).

-Yad

And I'll throw a vote in for 3. Since we're stating opinions.

As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

Comments making negative characterizations of other Dakka members are violations of rule #1.-Mannahnin

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

culsandar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

Because they didn't want Necrons to come back for SA, perhaps? Why ask why?

don_mondo wrote:

culsandar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

Because they didn't want Necrons to come back for SA, perhaps? Why ask why?

They didn't with WBB, yet it still caused a fuss til it was FAQ'd. Whats wrong with a "Units removed by SA cannot be reanimated."?

Because not having a specific statement that they can make their Ever-living roll when swept should have been good enough.

Ghaz wrote:Because not having a specific statement that they can make their Ever-living roll when swept should have been good enough.

You obviously do not have a grasp of 80% of the gamer populace. There is no such thing as good enough in rules design.

culsandar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

culsandar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

Because they didn't want Necrons to come back for SA, perhaps? Why ask why?

They didn't with WBB, yet it still caused a fuss til it was FAQ'd. Whats wrong with a "Units removed by SA cannot be reanimated."?

Ahhh, I thought you meant a staement protecting them from SA. As for a statement saying they are not protected, it's already in print in the SA rule itself. Not their fault if people want to willfully misunderstand the rules.......................

don_mondo wrote:

culsandar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

culsandar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

Because they didn't want Necrons to come back for SA, perhaps? Why ask why?

They didn't with WBB, yet it still caused a fuss til it was FAQ'd. Whats wrong with a "Units removed by SA cannot be reanimated."?

Ahhh, I thought you meant a staement protecting them from SA. As for a statement saying they are not protected, it's already in print in the SA rule itself. Not their fault if people want to willfully misunderstand the rules.......................

Agreed...with the part about folks willfully misunderstanding the rules that is

-Yad

culsandar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

Back in 4th ed WBB was given as the canonical example of something that didnt protect you from SA

The EXACT SAME rule is in place in 5th, with the exception that they removed the example. No other change.

They have never wanted Necrons to get back up from SA. Only a complete ignorance of the rules, as shown by some in the EL/RP threads, would allow you to come to any ther conclusioj

IMHO #3 is the correct way to play.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

culsandar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:As per the actual rules for SA, the whole unit is destroyed. All of them.

This I can see. It's weird that they didn't learn their lesson about specifically mentioning SA the first time around with WBB. Why leave it out again?

Back in 4th ed WBB was given as the canonical example of something that didnt protect you from SA

The EXACT SAME rule is in place in 5th, with the exception that they removed the example. No other change.

They have never wanted Necrons to get back up from SA. Only a complete ignorance of the rules, as shown by some in the EL/RP threads, would allow you to come to any ther conclusioj

Its not the exact same rule Its NOT WBB. Have a nice day.

My opinion is #1. My opinion is also that unless this thread is closed, the chances of it spiraling out of control approach infinite.

Hey rigeld, remember the other day when I asked if anyone wanted to start this topic back up? Guess your "NO" did not quite take.

Just roll it off until the 6th edition arrives.

Happyjew wrote:Hey rigeld, remember the other day when I asked if anyone wanted to start this topic back up? Guess your "NO" did not quite take.

Sometimes I dislike you. :--)

And Basimpo - the trigger literally exactly the same. Guess what overrode the trigger in WBB?

Stop it. Stop it right now. If you want to argue this go back to the old thread.

WBB and EL have completely different mechanics. Both may be about a roll to bring the model back, but there are distinct differences between them.

My opinion is #1.

I choose option 4. There is going to be another 20+ page going in circles unless we stop this silliness right now.

Option 3.

Also, making negative characterizations of other people is a bad way to argue, and a violation of Dakka rule #1.

I thought it was 2 >.>

but then again, I never read the rules since the cron codex came out, or ever read the FAQ

? Does EL have a specific mention of SA in the rule? Didn't think so. #3.

don_mondo wrote:? Does EL have a specific mention of SA in the rule? Didn't think so. #3.

So in the OP's scenario the game is now broken. SA can't get rid of a legitimately placed EL (Fall Back removes RP tokens only) token coupled with your assertion that you can't roll for the EL token (because of SA) at the end of Assault. End result is EL token remains unresolved for the remainder of the game.

-Yad

i love cheese cake spam spam spam.

i honestly am wondering why this thread(s) still go on at some point you have to jsut move on and let this die till its a faqed or b never is faqed and in 2 weeks it starts up again.

Yad wrote:

don_mondo wrote:? Does EL have a specific mention of SA in the rule? Didn't think so. #3.

So in the OP's scenario the game is now broken. SA can't get rid of a legitimately placed EL (Fall Back removes RP tokens only) token coupled with your assertion that you can't roll for the EL token (because of SA) at the end of Assault. End result is EL token remains unresolved for the remainder of the game.

-Yad

Except it's not Fall Back. It's Sweeping Advance. There's a difference. Fall Back allows surviving models in the unit to move away from the combat, Sweeping Advance REMOVES the unit.

don_mondo wrote:

Yad wrote:

don_mondo wrote:? Does EL have a specific mention of SA in the rule? Didn't think so. #3.

So in the OP's scenario the game is now broken. SA can't get rid of a legitimately placed EL (Fall Back removes RP tokens only) token coupled with your assertion that you can't roll for the EL token (because of SA) at the end of Assault. End result is EL token remains unresolved for the remainder of the game.

-Yad

Except it's not Fall Back. It's Sweeping Advance. There's a difference. Fall Back allows surviving models in the unit to move away from the combat, Sweeping Advance REMOVES the unit.

i think it says destroys lol

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

Yad wrote:

don_mondo wrote:? Does EL have a specific mention of SA in the rule? Didn't think so. #3.

So in the OP's scenario the game is now broken. SA can't get rid of a legitimately placed EL (Fall Back removes RP tokens only) token coupled with your assertion that you can't roll for the EL token (because of SA) at the end of Assault. End result is EL token remains unresolved for the remainder of the game.

-Yad

Except it's not Fall Back. It's Sweeping Advance. There's a difference. Fall Back allows surviving models in the unit to move away from the combat, Sweeping Advance REMOVES the unit.

i think it says destroys lol

Yes, it does, along with this:

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