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.

ngilstrap wrote:The premise of not allowing EL rolls after SA is based on the term "rescue".

Incorrect. Rather the fact that SA does not allow for EL rolls is based on the rule which says, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit..."

Immediately, as in right then and there, you remove the unit.

Not part of the unit, not some of the unit, the entire unit.

Unless you have a special rule that start with "If the unit is caught in a sweeping advance, {then something else besides being destroyed and immediately removed happens}."

nosferatu1001 wrote:8) Beginning of next turn, when WBB occcured - yet WBB never worked

What makes you think EL works?

You won't allow the use of a simliar rule like Celestines in the current SW FAQ that says you're allowed to come back, but you're going to use an out of date FAQ on a codex that is no longer valid to support your view?

Consistency my friend.

As above.

The timing idea not only ignores the current rules, it ignores the old rules as well for something that didnt work, even though it occured even later in the sequence of events than the current rules.

Does EL specify it can rescue the unit from SA? No? then I guess that that EL token that is a member of the unit, as proven by the rules AND the FAQ over and over and over and over gets removed, because otherwise you would be trying to rescue a member of the unit, which is rescuing the unit.

However, given we went through many pages of this before, and one side seemed unable to comprehend it then, is it worth continuing? given we;re right back to the start for probably the 90th time, there's surely only so many times you can shoot someones arguments down before it gets pointless?

time wizard wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:The premise of not allowing EL rolls after SA is based on the term "rescue".

Incorrect. Rather the fact that SA does not allow for EL rolls is based on the rule which says, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit..."

Immediately, as in right then and there, you remove the unit.

Not part of the unit, not some of the unit, the entire unit.

Unless you have a special rule that start with "If the unit is caught in a sweeping advance, {then something else besides being destroyed and immediately removed happens}."

This is a good point but has 2 areas that require clarification:

1) Even if we were to agree that SA removes the unit and somehow doesn't allow the placement of EL tokens because of that, this doesn't account for the situation in which an EL model has already been killed prior to the sweeping advance. In this case, the EL token is already on the board prior to the sweeping advance occurring, and we are back to the timing argument. The part that then becomes an issue, even if we agree that the SA rule forbids EL rolls (which we clearly aren't because I don't believe the term rescue prevents this roll by definition), is the continued discussion that a dead model is part of a unit, which has no support one way or another. Thus, making an assumption either direction immediately false.

2) This is also a good point, but as you stated with a highlight, I will respond with a highlight.

"The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit..." - your point is it needs to specify

"The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit..." - my point is there is nothing to specify because EL isn't rescuing anything.

ngilstrap wrote:However, I believe the timing argument, lacking any definition of the term rescue, is the stronger argument because it more closely fits the dictionary definition of the word. The reason is that trying to make the word "rescue" apply after the situation has already occurred is STRETCHING the definition of the word rescue considerably. The timing argument makes no such stretch.

If SA didn't include the phrase "at this stage" I'd agree with you.
It does, which means SA is not just a one and done effect.

@rigeld2: I was definitely wrong about the Cryptek/Lord being able to join one or more units. I took another look through and I agree with you on that.

I still think you're off on SA and EL though

-Yad

ngilstrap wrote:. The part that then becomes an issue, even if we agree that the SA rule forbids EL rolls (which we clearly aren't because I don't believe the term rescue prevents this roll by definition), is the continued discussion that a dead model is part of a unit, which has no support one way or another.

Necron codex, page 82, Resurrection Orb, "The bearer of the resurrection orb (and his unit) pass Reanimation Protocols on a 4+."

Necron FAQ version 2.0.

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, the one that was removed as a casulaty, can use the res orb on himself and his unit.

If the dead model were not part of the unit, there is no way he could use his res orb on them.

Here is the support that a dead model is still part of a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:However, I believe the timing argument, lacking any definition of the term rescue, is the stronger argument because it more closely fits the dictionary definition of the word. The reason is that trying to make the word "rescue" apply after the situation has already occurred is STRETCHING the definition of the word rescue considerably. The timing argument makes no such stretch.

If SA didn't include the phrase "at this stage" I'd agree with you.
It does, which means SA is not just a one and done effect.

I'm not sure on your interpretation of "at this stage". Can you clarify for me? "At this stage" seems to imply a timing argument to me which supports the idea that the unit is not being rescued, in my interpretation. My paraphrase would look like this (because really "stage" isn't defined either in the rule book *le sigh at bad rules*)

My paraphrase:
"Nothing can rescue you from sweeping advance at this point, unless otherwise specified". To me, the reading of the "at this stage" implies nothing can save you at the time in which you are being swept, NOT any indication at what happens at a later time (read: later stage). This seems to support that not only are you not being "rescued", even if you read rescue == resurrected, it is happening at a different stage.

time wizard wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:. The part that then becomes an issue, even if we agree that the SA rule forbids EL rolls (which we clearly aren't because I don't believe the term rescue prevents this roll by definition), is the continued discussion that a dead model is part of a unit, which has no support one way or another.

Necron codex, page 82, Resurrection Orb, "The bearer of the resurrection orb (and his unit) pass Reanimation Protocols on a 4+."

Necron FAQ version 2.0.

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, the one that was removed as a casulaty, can use the res orb on himself and his unit.

If the dead model were not part of the unit, there is no way he could use his res orb on them.

Here is the support that a dead model is still part of a unit.

That's a pretty narrow FAQ ruling though. I'd be cautious about applying that horizontally across the board. To me, this FAQ says that the Res Orb effect, and only the Res Orb effect, can still be used if the owning model is removed from play as a casualty. I wouldn't want to go down the path of now all wargear can be used when the owning model is removed from play.

-Yad

time wizard wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:. The part that then becomes an issue, even if we agree that the SA rule forbids EL rolls (which we clearly aren't because I don't believe the term rescue prevents this roll by definition), is the continued discussion that a dead model is part of a unit, which has no support one way or another.

Necron codex, page 82, Resurrection Orb, "The bearer of the resurrection orb (and his unit) pass Reanimation Protocols on a 4+."

Necron FAQ version 2.0.

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, the one that was removed as a casulaty, can use the res orb on himself and his unit.

If the dead model were not part of the unit, there is no way he could use his res orb on them.

Here is the support that a dead model is still part of a unit.

That seems pretty reasonable to me then as evidence that he is still part of the unit. Glad that's put away.

Still two more things to resolve though before we can conclude:

1) can we remove a model due to SA when we already removed it due to him dying? (Removing him from the board twice...). It does seem that the model is still part of the unit, and SA does say to remove the entire unit from the board. What isn't clear now is how to remove a model that was already removed. this seems to create a paradox of sorts.

2) Is EL a "rescue"?

Yad wrote:That's a pretty narrow FAQ ruling though. I'd be cautious about applying that horizontally across the board. To me, this FAQ says that the Res Orb effect, and only the Res Orb effect, can still be used if the owning model is removed from play as a casualty. I wouldn't want to go down the path of now all wargear can be used when the owning model is removed from play.

That's not what he's interpreting from the FAQ.
The FAQ answer says "and his unit". Which means the orb holder is still a member of the unit he was when he went down.

1) You remove the unit - and as the token represents a member of the unit, you remove the token. No paradox whatsoever.

2) Yes, because you are bringing the unit back after it has been destroyed. A unit going from state: destroyed to state:not destroyed has certainly been rescued.

I can rescue someone whose heart has stopped (they are clinically dead) by resarting it; you rescue the unit by reintroducing (or keeping, given the token IS a member of the unit) a member of the unit after SA occurs.

time wizard wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:The premise of not allowing EL rolls after SA is based on the term "rescue".

Incorrect. Rather the fact that SA does not allow for EL rolls is based on the rule which says, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit..."

Immediately, as in right then and there, you remove the unit.

Not part of the unit, not some of the unit, the entire unit.

Unless you have a special rule that start with "If the unit is caught in a sweeping advance, {then something else besides being destroyed and immediately removed happens}."

Sorry to repost this but doing so for clarity.
1) Determine Assault Results
2) Loser checks morale
3) If the loser is falling back, the attacker does a Sweeping Advance
4) the attacker consolidates
5) End of combat
6) All combats resolved
7) End of Phase (when EL rolls are made)

To "specify it stops SA" and do what you're saying would mean the model is still alive at #3 SA and prevents #4 consolidation. In fact all the other RP models wouldn't die either. The purpose of EL is not to prevent, save, or rescue the model from death.

For the model to die by SA, it cannot have a rule specifying EL "prevents Sweeping Advance". The model with EL must die for EL to work.

ngilstrap wrote:
1) can we remove a model due to SA when we already removed it due to him dying? (Removing him from the board twice...). It does seem that the model is still part of the unit, and SA does say to remove the entire unit from the board. What isn't clear now is how to remove a model that was already removed. this seems to create a paradox of sorts.

You kind of answered your own point here. SA does not remove models, the unit is destroyed and removed. The entire unit.

ngilstrap wrote:2) Is EL a "rescue"?

It does not matter. EL is a special rule, and no special rule can negate SA unless otherwise specified.

For an example of being otherwise specified, look at the space marine ATSKNF rule.

ngilstrap wrote:I'm not sure on your interpretation of "at this stage". Can you clarify for me? "At this stage" seems to imply a timing argument to me which supports the idea that the unit is not being rescued, in my interpretation. My paraphrase would look like this (because really "stage" isn't defined either in the rule book *le sigh at bad rules*)

My paraphrase:
"Nothing can rescue you from sweeping advance at this point, unless otherwise specified". To me, the reading of the "at this stage" implies nothing can save you at the time in which you are being swept, NOT any indication at what happens at a later time (read: later stage). This seems to support that not only are you not being "rescued", even if you read rescue == resurrected, it is happening at a different stage.

I'd ask you to read the thread to see my reasoning, but apparently that's rude, so I'll make the effort to retype all my arguments.

"at this stage", by itself, can be read to mean either "right now, at this point" or "from here on out".
The context of the rule ("for them the battle is over", We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding.") points to the latter reading being the correct one.

ngilstrap wrote:Still two more things to resolve though before we can conclude:

1) can we remove a model due to SA when we already removed it due to him dying? (Removing him from the board twice...). It does seem that the model is still part of the unit, and SA does say to remove the entire unit from the board. What isn't clear now is how to remove a model that was already removed. this seems to create a paradox of sorts.

No, of course we can't. That would be silly.
The counter can stay on the table. You can even roll for it if you want. But placing the model back on the table is breaking the SA rule.

2) Is EL a "rescue"?

Q1: Was the unit destroyed?
Q2: Does bringing back the EL model un-destroy the unit?
Q3: Does un-destroying the unit "rescue" the unit from destruction?

A1: Yes, per the SA rules.
A2: Yes - the EL model does not create a new unit when it stands back up.
A3: Yes - the unit was saved from destruction - no kill point is awarded if the game ends after this phase.

I don't see any way to define "rescue" that avoids those issues.

rigeld2 wrote:

2) Is EL a "rescue"?

Q1: Was the unit destroyed?
Q2: Does bringing back the EL model un-destroy the unit?
Q3: Does un-destroying the unit "rescue" the unit from destruction?

A1: Yes, per the SA rules.
A2: Yes - the EL model does not create a new unit when it stands back up.
A3: Yes - the unit was saved from destruction - no kill point is awarded if the game ends after this phase.

I don't see any way to define "rescue" that avoids those issues.

A3 is flawed - the unit was destroyed by SA. Wiped out and removed from the table, thus satisfying fully the rules for SA. Rolling for the EL token after the SA is resolved does not constitute a 'rescue' of the unit.

I think I'll bow out now and wait for the next time this topic rears its head

-Yad

Yad - how have you NOT rescued the unit?

The unit was dead. It is not not-dead. By all measures that unit has been rescued.

Rigeld2 - If by rescue you mean "prevent the death of" certainly there is no conflict. You can't rescue dead people.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You remove the unit - and as the token represents a member of the unit, you remove the token. No paradox whatsoever.

2) Yes, because you are bringing the unit back after it has been destroyed. A unit going from state: destroyed to state:not destroyed has certainly been rescued.

I can rescue someone whose heart has stopped (they are clinically dead) by resarting it; you rescue the unit by reintroducing (or keeping, given the token IS a member of the unit) a member of the unit after SA occurs.

1) I think the remove the token part is the point of contention here. There is no specification that SA removes tokens. I think that's a big reason why this is being debated. If it did say remove tokens, we wouldn't be having such a fun conversation.

2) As posted above, this doesn't tightly fit the term rescue. I can see the logic here, but I think this is stretching the term rescue's meaning into something that is more clearly defined by the term resurrection. (Clinical death isn't heart stop btw, but an aside, it has to do with brain waves, at which point they won't try to rescue you with CPR. ) If someone actually is clinically dead, resurrecting them would not be rescuing them. Again, I think that's a second point on why this conversation is contentious. I can see your logic, and it is clear. It doesn't invalidate, though, that the term rescue may be being over-interpreted, rather just validates it. (Thus, we will reach an impasse)

You may resurrect, reanimate, or reincarnate dead people. But rescuing - not so much.

Yad wrote: Rolling for the EL token after the SA is resolved does not constitute a 'rescue' of the unit.
-Yad

If you have a unit of 5 warrior with a joined cryptek, and all 6 are killed due to shooting, you don't put down any RP counters, but you can still put down an EL counter.

Now you roll for and pass the cryptek's EL roll, and it is returned to play.

You don't give up a kill point, the cryptek, the last member of the unit is still alive.

The cryptek can control objectives, he is still a warrior like the rest of his unit.

If the cryptek has a res orb, and not all the warriors were killed, he could use it for his and their RP and EL rolls.

But it is still insisted upon by some that the EL counter is not part of the unit and is not caught and removed by sweeping advance.

Incredible.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Rigeld2 - If by rescue you mean "prevent the death of" certainly there is no conflict. You can't rescue dead people.

That's not how the SA rule uses that word.
SA destroys the unit, which consists of a bunch of models.
Bringing back any of those models rescues the unit - pretty much by definition.

It's being rescued from destruction, not "rescuing dead people"

time wizard wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:
1) can we remove a model due to SA when we already removed it due to him dying? (Removing him from the board twice...). It does seem that the model is still part of the unit, and SA does say to remove the entire unit from the board. What isn't clear now is how to remove a model that was already removed. this seems to create a paradox of sorts.

You kind of answered your own point here. SA does not remove models, the unit is destroyed and removed. The entire unit.

ngilstrap wrote:2) Is EL a "rescue"?

It does not matter. EL is a special rule, and no special rule can negate SA unless otherwise specified.

For an example of being otherwise specified, look at the space marine ATSKNF rule.

1) That wasn't an answer but a question. SA does destroy and remove. The problem is the situation in which the model has already been destroyed and removed due to being killed in combat. There is a distinction there and a paradox in which you are trying to double remove something. (object reference no longer in existence if you will )

2) It does matter because SA expressly forbids "rescuing". If the point is that it isn't a rescue, SA's specification of rescue no longer is applicable. It's really key to the entire argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Rigeld2 - If by rescue you mean "prevent the death of" certainly there is no conflict. You can't rescue dead people.

That's not how the SA rule uses that word.
SA destroys the unit, which consists of a bunch of models.
Bringing back any of those models rescues the unit - pretty much by definition.

It's being rescued from destruction, not "rescuing dead people"

I understand. I meant it a bit tongue in cheek.

However I would still say rescuing must be defined as "preventing the death" like is intended with ATSKNF. If EL rescued the model, it would still be in combat.

Would you say Sweeping Advance happens before Consolidation or do they happen at the same time?

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:I'm not sure on your interpretation of "at this stage". Can you clarify for me? "At this stage" seems to imply a timing argument to me which supports the idea that the unit is not being rescued, in my interpretation. My paraphrase would look like this (because really "stage" isn't defined either in the rule book *le sigh at bad rules*)

My paraphrase:
"Nothing can rescue you from sweeping advance at this point, unless otherwise specified". To me, the reading of the "at this stage" implies nothing can save you at the time in which you are being swept, NOT any indication at what happens at a later time (read: later stage). This seems to support that not only are you not being "rescued", even if you read rescue == resurrected, it is happening at a different stage.

I'd ask you to read the thread to see my reasoning, but apparently that's rude, so I'll make the effort to retype all my arguments.

I have read the thread, and for future reference, statements like these, especially when directed for no reason are also rude. The reason for that is that assuming because someone doesn't agree with you means they didn't read the thread is what causes the statement to be viewed as rude (although sometimes probably justified).

rigeld2 wrote:
"at this stage", by itself, can be read to mean either "right now, at this point" or "from here on out".
The context of the rule ("for them the battle is over", We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding.") points to the latter reading being the correct one.

"from here on out", I can see how that could be read that way. At best, though, we would be relying now in interpretation and it would come down to 'at this stage" being more strongly interpreted as "this moment" or "any moment thereafter". Probably best left mute here because neither can prove correct since the "stage" term is not defined.

The second part is more compelling, but again, the entire point is that the model has died, been rended, wounded, etc. This is more a fluff statement, granted, but in that vein, the fluff also states that RP is the robot putting itself back together. This implies that he got wrecked already and is no resurrecting himself. (The T1000 gets hit by liquid nitrogen (a sweeping advance) and is shattered. Later on, heat comes in and he resurrects himself.)

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:Still two more things to resolve though before we can conclude:

1) can we remove a model due to SA when we already removed it due to him dying? (Removing him from the board twice...). It does seem that the model is still part of the unit, and SA does say to remove the entire unit from the board. What isn't clear now is how to remove a model that was already removed. this seems to create a paradox of sorts.

No, of course we can't. That would be silly.
The counter can stay on the table. You can even roll for it if you want. But placing the model back on the table is breaking the SA rule.

This is the point of the argument. It is not breaking the rule. (As above). I am contending that EL does not "rescue". For us to agree that it breaks the rules, we must agree that it is a "rescue".

rigeld2 wrote:

2) Is EL a "rescue"?

Q1: Was the unit destroyed?
Q2: Does bringing back the EL model un-destroy the unit?
Q3: Does un-destroying the unit "rescue" the unit from destruction?

A1: Yes, per the SA rules.
A2: Yes - the EL model does not create a new unit when it stands back up.
A3: Yes - the unit was saved from destruction - no kill point is awarded if the game ends after this phase.

I don't see any way to define "rescue" that avoids those issues.

A1: We agree here. The unit is indeed destroyed. No point of contention.
A2: Also agreed. No point of contention.
A3: This is the point of contention. The unit was not "rescued". It did indeed get destroyed, as per our agreement on A1 and A2. A rescue != a resurrection, as per A2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Rigeld2 - If by rescue you mean "prevent the death of" certainly there is no conflict. You can't rescue dead people.

Well said.

ngilstrap wrote:1) That wasn't an answer but a question. SA does destroy and remove. The problem is the situation in which the model has already been destroyed and removed due to being killed in combat. There is a distinction there and a paradox in which you are trying to double remove something. (object reference no longer in existence if you will )

Even if killed in CC before the sweep, the model in question (IC or not) is still part of the unit. Alive or dead it's still part of the unit, the unit is destroyed.

2) It does matter because SA expressly forbids "rescuing". If the point is that it isn't a rescue, SA's specification of rescue no longer is applicable. It's really key to the entire argument.

Making a roll for EV would return a member of the swept unit (still a member of the unit, see above) therefore 'rescuing' it. The sweep prevents the return. IC can change units after they return, but the sweep prevents this return in the first place so they are stuck as part of the swept (destroyed) unit.

Nevermind.

The unit was dead. It is not not-dead. By all measures that unit has been rescued.

On the contrary. If the unit became dead it wasn't rescued from death/sweeping advance.
Restoration is just that. Return into play of a model that 'died'. By definition of rescue it isn't it.
Now, there is clear confusion about just what resurrection protocol and everliving tokengs are.
They are not part of the unit. Unit consists of models, which they are not.
Resurrection protocol counters are additional charactersitic that unit gains at the moment the casualties are inflicted to it. The only thing they represent is how many dice are rolled at the end of the phase.
Likewise, everliving counter is not part of a unit. For it, however, a specific model (that was removed from play as a casualty) is defined and the unit the model was attached to when it 'died' (this one is optional). These two things determine how everliving counter is resolved. I must stress that unlike Resurrection protocol counter isn't even "added" to unit and thus cannot even be considered its characteristic.
P.S. And characters are not even considered part of the unit for the purposeof reanimation protocol anyway.

time wizard wrote:

Yad wrote: Rolling for the EL token after the SA is resolved does not constitute a 'rescue' of the unit.
-Yad

If you have a unit of 5 warrior with a joined cryptek, and all 6 are killed due to shooting, you don't put down any RP counters, but you can still put down an EL counter.

Now you roll for and pass the cryptek's EL roll, and it is returned to play.

You don't give up a kill point, the cryptek, the last member of the unit is still alive.

The cryptek can control objectives, he is still a warrior like the rest of his unit.

If the cryptek has a res orb, and not all the warriors were killed, he could use it for his and their RP and EL rolls.

But it is still insisted upon by some that the EL counter is not part of the unit and is not caught and removed by sweeping advance.

Incredible.

The reason it is being insisted on is because there is nothing very clear in the rules about a token being part of a unit. This is closely related to the quantum physics demonstration about a cat in a box with a vial of poison. The token represents the "chance" that something is alive, but does not go one way or another until the roll is made. The "chance" of being a unit is not the same thing as being a unit. I hope that helps you understand why this is contentious rather than creating more confusion!

Likewise, because SA doesn't say to remove tokens, it says to remove units.

I think the point you are making is logical, but i think the problem is we have two very logical points.

Saldiven wrote:Don't use quotation marks when you aren't quoting anything. The SA rules nowhere use the word "immediately."

Sweeping advance, main rules, page 40, 3rd sentence, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately."