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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The order of operations is this -

SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation

with a rule that stops Sweeping Advance

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

And how it's proposed

SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL

That's a huge difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Happyjew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation

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

And how it's proposed

SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL

See you missed a part here

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

Kevin - so you get to rescue the unit?

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

Yes, or No.

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

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

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

This was hashed out in the last SA thread.

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

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

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

-Yad

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin949 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is that just fluff?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

-Yad

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

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

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

robzidious wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevin949 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SA - Removed as Casualty - Consolidation

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

And how it's proposed

SA - Removed as casualty - Consolidation - EL

See you missed a part here

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

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

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

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

Yes, or No.

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

Simple Answer - No.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Captain Antivas wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or is that just fluff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THe unit was rescued, you have broken SA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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