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.

Captain Antivas wrote:

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.

And that right there is the mistake you're making. When you execute the SA rule mechanic what do you do? You destroy and immediately remove the models (as casualties). That's it, there is nothing more that SA requires. You've satisfied every point in the SA rule. Now at the end of the phase you need to resolve the EL tokens. Rolling for them does not invalidate the execution of the SA rule.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Yad wrote: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.

Ok. To rescue a unit from SA you need to stop the SA from happening. Example --> ATSKNF

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.

Kevin, it might be snide but it is correct. You are insisting that a part of the rules, where it is clearly in the same sentence of how a rule works, is just fluff. I wonder where you might get that info. Thus all the comments about magic rings and what not. Back to the issue at hand though. You cannot use EL during SA, because you would be placing a token when the model was removed as a causalty. The SA rule states that no special rule can be used to save the unit, which EL is a special rule. Now at this point if you can come up with a counter arguement to the previous post I made using you own step by step process and still have a viable counter arguement I will be shocked..... Ignore all the other stuff, because I was making a point.

Liturgies, oh my, EL is not specific it is a general, whenever a model with this rule is removed from play as a casualty is not specific. See that whenever there, that makes it a blanket statement, also known as a general statement.Thus countering your whole EL is more specific than SA. Futhermore, that whole thing about no special rule being used, unless specified thing, kind of makes your arguement really weak. See no special rules means no activation or trigger effects can be used unless it says something like, in the case os SA do this instead of removing the models, or in case of SA still place the token for EL. Since there is nothing like that in EL you cannot, in any way shape or form, use EL. Meaning no token, no roll at end of phase.....

Yad you are missing the point of no special rules are allowed to save the unit, unless specified. If you place the EL token during the SA, then you have used a special rule in an attempt to save a unit in the SA. Which SA disallows unless the special rules specify that it can be used during SA.

Address the issue at hand instead of going round about it. If the unit survives a SA to fight on how were they not rescued?

robzidious wrote:

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.

Pretty much what he said. This is the way I understand the rule as well. You can jump up and down, shout or repeat yourself all you like but this the way it was intended to be used. At best we're stuck with a roll off and then continues the game. At worst we pack up and stop playing each other.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Kevin, it might be snide but it is correct. You are insisting that a part of the rules, where it is clearly in the same sentence of how a rule works, is just fluff. I wonder where you might get that info. Thus all the comments about magic rings and what not. Back to the issue at hand though. You cannot use EL during SA, because you would be placing a token when the model was removed as a causalty. The SA rule states that no special rule can be used to save the unit, which EL is a special rule. Now at this point if you can come up with a counter arguement to the previous post I made using you own step by step process and still have a viable counter arguement I will be shocked..... Ignore all the other stuff, because I was making a point.

Liturgies, oh my, EL is not specific it is a general, whenever a model with this rule is removed from play as a casualty is not specific. See that whenever there, that makes it a blanket statement, also known as a general statement.Thus countering your whole EL is more specific than SA. Futhermore, that whole thing about no special rule being used, unless specified thing, kind of makes your arguement really weak. See no special rules means no activation or trigger effects can be used unless it says something like, in the case os SA do this instead of removing the models, or in case of SA still place the token for EL. Since there is nothing like that in EL you cannot, in any way shape or form, use EL. Meaning no token, no roll at end of phase.....

Yad you are missing the point of no special rules are allowed to save the unit, unless specified. If you place the EL token during the SA, then you have used a special rule in an attempt to save a unit in the SA. Which SA disallows unless the special rules specify that it can be used during SA.

In general models cannot come back from being removed as a casualty. A situation where a model is allowed to try to come back is by definition a specific rule. A specific rule can be applied in general to certain units or situations but it does not make it a general rule. Also your arguement is based on reading a sentece out of context. A context that is clear and a meaning for "at this stage" that I have tried to explain to you.

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

So, the special rule mentions Sweeping Advance? Otherwise you still have failed to find >>>>>>SPECIFIC <<<<<<< mention of Sweeping Advance in the special rule, as required by the Sweeping ADvance Rule

EL works on EVERY instance of Removed as a Casualty. EVERY instance. THis is a GENERAL rule on being removed as a casualty
Sweeping Advance is a SPECIFIC RULE about being removed as a casualty, as it ONLY applies when SA is triggered. By definition this is the more specifric rule

liturgies of blood wrote: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?

No, I have stated that both applies. At this stage, when read in context (the same context you have failed to acknowledge, invalidating your argument at every step) it isnt a single instant. Thats just fact.


The model has rules that allow it to come back from RaaC, but not agaiunsit SA. BEcause, as has been pointed out, SA tells you waht the rule needs to say for it to work.

Rob - and, again, you cannot find specific mention of Sweeping Advance. Hell, you even note that the unit has been rescued by EL, yet dont think this breaks SA. At this point you are simply ignoring real, actual rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

So, the special rule mentions Sweeping Advance? Otherwise you still have failed to find >>>>>>SPECIFIC <<<<<<< mention of Sweeping Advance in the special rule, as required by the Sweeping ADvance Rule

EL works on EVERY instance of Removed as a Casualty. EVERY instance. THis is a GENERAL rule on being removed as a casualty
Sweeping Advance is a SPECIFIC RULE about being removed as a casualty, as it ONLY applies when SA is triggered. By definition this is the more specifric rule

liturgies of blood wrote: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?

No, I have stated that both applies. At this stage, when read in context (the same context you have failed to acknowledge, invalidating your argument at every step) it isnt a single instant. Thats just fact.


The model has rules that allow it to come back from RaaC, but not agaiunsit SA. BEcause, as has been pointed out, SA tells you waht the rule needs to say for it to work.

Rob - and, again, you cannot find specific mention of Sweeping Advance. Hell, you even note that the unit has been rescued by EL, yet dont think this breaks SA. At this point you are simply ignoring real, actual rules.

Nope. Not ignoring real actual rules. The real actual rule states when a model with EL is removed as a casualty you replace it with an EL counter. At the end of the phase you roll to see if they get back up (if the condtions for such are met)

Nothing breaks SA with this. The SA happens. That's how the model is destroyed. There is no "specific mention" of sweeping advance in the EL rule because there is no need for it.

Ah, so when the EL rule saves the unit from being destroyed, or rescues the unit from destruction, and does so WITHOUT specifically mentionig SA, you ARENT breaking the SA rules?

Odd, because when you read the actual rules that is exactly what you are doing.

Captain Antivas wrote:Address the issue at hand instead of going round about it. If the unit survives a SA to fight on how were they not rescued?

I'll give it one more try and then stick a fork in it.

The unit does not survive the SA. They cannot be rescued. EL does not, cannot, will not, stop a SA from happening. You must however resolve the EL tokens that remain on the battlefield.

-Yad

Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

No, they are two totally separate rules which have nothing to do with one another and are resolved independently from one another with different triggers and timing.

doesnt a model with EL have to be rejoined to the unit he was apart of before he died?

How is this possible if the other models in the unit are dead from a SA?

In a permissive ruleset, what gives a unit permission to kill a Necron model at the end of the phase? This is key.

1. The EL model is removed AS A CASUALTY when the enemy unit does a sweeping advance. Regardless of SA text, a token is placed according to permission in the Codex.

2. What prevents the Necron player for rolling for EL at the end of the phase like the Codex tells him to. Nothing, so he rolls.

3. At the end of the phase, the EL model is back, what rule gives the unit permission to kill the Necron model AT THIS TIME? No rule. In a permissive ruleset, you DO NOT have permission to kill that Necron with EL and remove it as a casualty again because you already did in a previous stage.

Where does the rule say SA removes a model as a casualty at the end of the phase? It doesn't.

DR, as has been pointed out, the FAQ clarifies that if a unit is wiped out and an EL model comes back, it is simply placed within 3" of the token.

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Even if the rule in 4th said in exact words, the RAW wording now is changed so it's completely unrelated. Even if Necrons didn't used to be able to, now they can.

The "destroyed" part of the rule for some people in 5th edition was the key point that some people looked at to decide. Now the wording has changed from "destroyed" to "removed as a casualty". I don't think this is a coincidence.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Even if the rule in 4th said in exact words, the RAW wording now is changed so it's completely unrelated. Even if Necrons didn't used to be able to, now they can.

The "destroyed" part of the rule for some people in 5th edition was the key point that some people looked at to decide. Now the wording has changed from "destroyed" to "removed as a casualty". I don't think this is a coincidence.

You STILL aren't allowed to save the unit in any way unless you're given explicit permission to though. That works just as it always has, which is why people are quoting old rules.

Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Even if the rule in 4th said in exact words, the RAW wording now is changed so it's completely unrelated. Even if Necrons didn't used to be able to, now they can.

The "destroyed" part of the rule for some people in 5th edition was the key point that some people looked at to decide. Now the wording has changed from "destroyed" to "removed as a casualty". I don't think this is a coincidence.

It still says destroyed.

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

Even though St. Celestine is Fearless, yes SA would stop her from returning. Why? Because her Miraculous Intervention does not specify that it counters SA, like ATSKNF does. It really is that simple.

Edit: To further clarify. If St. Celestine were to get back up from her MI after being SA'd, she'd still be breaking the rule of SA saying that, "for them the battle is over." If St. Celestine gets back up, then for her the battle isn't over, thus breaking the SA rule. Ditto for EL.

robzidious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

No, they are two totally separate rules which have nothing to do with one another and are resolved independently from one another with different triggers and timing.

Incorrect. "for them the battle is over" and "at this stage" tells you EXACTLY the duration of Sweeping Advance.

Again: you have no rules support to counter that you are saving / rescuing / returning the unit to the battle despite *explicit* instructions to the contrary. Find specific permission to save the unit, as required by SA, or you must concede.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

robzidious wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that doing so rescues the unit from destruction. The unit WAS destroyed, they no longer are, meaning you have broken the rule.

No, they are two totally separate rules which have nothing to do with one another and are resolved independently from one another with different triggers and timing.

Incorrect. "for them the battle is over" and "at this stage" tells you EXACTLY the duration of Sweeping Advance.

Again: you have no rules support to counter that you are saving / rescuing / returning the unit to the battle despite *explicit* instructions to the contrary. Find specific permission to save the unit, as required by SA, or you must concede.

Again EL special rule and the statement about the unit being "wiped out" from the FAQ. There's your permission (as has been stated multiple times in this thread). I'm done arguing this.

robzidious wrote:Again EL special rule and the statement about the unit being "wiped out" from the FAQ. There's your permission (as has been stated multiple times in this thread). I'm done arguing this.

Unless that FAQ changes EL to say that it works against SA, it doesn't.

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

St. C is fearless and therefore cannot be swept.
But yes - if she was, she could not come back.

Killjoy00 wrote:Nos (and others putting all the stock in "for them the battle is over") - do you believe sweeping advance stops St. Celestine from returning?

A fearless unit cannot fail a morale check so this situation is irrelevant.

So an example from a previous edition is not relevant to the debate? I couldn't agree more. That is why WBB and what happened in 5th ed are no longer analogous.

liturgies of blood wrote:So an example from a previous edition is not relevant to the debate? I couldn't agree more. That is why WBB and what happened in 5th ed are no longer analogous.

When it is the exact same prohibition it is exactly analogous, you just refuse to acknowledge it. The prohibition on "no special rule " hasnot changed between editions. Any argument that a special rule can rescue a unit is doomed from the start, unless if specifies it works against SA.

Any rule argument against "battle is over"? You're certainly rescuing a unit and trying to make sure its battle is not over, so unless you can find specific allowance you still have no argument

Rob where in the FAQ or special rule does it mentioned SA? It doesn't. Then you still cannot show permission. Concession accepted.

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a wargamer defending a wording from a rulebook, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that game store deliberatin' and conjugatin' the rules as written, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must concede! The defense rests.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:So an example from a previous edition is not relevant to the debate? I couldn't agree more. That is why WBB and what happened in 5th ed are no longer analogous.

When it is the exact same prohibition it is exactly analogous, you just refuse to acknowledge it. The prohibition on "no special rule " hasnot changed between editions. Any argument that a special rule can rescue a unit is doomed from the start, unless if specifies it works against SA.

I thought I was done with this but you keep pulling me back in

There is no argument to be made that EL saves/rescues a unit from a successful SA. Regarding Necrons, it's just not possible. Here's an example to better enable you to comprehend what I'm arguing.

Let's say that you are witness to one person shooting and killing another. In this scenario you just happen to have a widget that can bring anything back from the dead. You rush forward and use your widget to bring back the person that was shot. The question I put to you is, did you rescue the person from being shot? My answer is no, they were shot and killed. Your widget did not save/rescue the person from the shooting as it did not stop the shooting. What your widget did do was bring them back after the shooting occurred. What it did not do was was negate the shooting event from even occurring.

Now do you get what I'm arguing? EL does not save/rescue the unit from a SA because it cannot stop a SA from happening. It's like that ID/EW/FNP thread going on, the SA happened, and thinking that the EL somehow negates it and rescues the unit is just plain wrong. The unit cannot be rescued from a SA; the unit cannot be saved from a SA; the unit is destroyed and RFPaaC from a SA.

Legally placed EL tokens must still be rolled for at the end of the phase.


-Yad

The SA happened, the unit was destroyed, then the unit is not destroyed. How is that not rescuing them?

Captain Antivas wrote:The SA happened, the unit was destroyed, then the unit is not destroyed. How is that not rescuing them?

The only thing I can say to this line of thought is that you simply aren't understand how SA and EL interact, or more to the point, don't interact. You are oversimplifying (possibly even setting up a straw man) the rules. To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA. EL doesn't rescue them because it doesn't stop the SA from happening.

-Yad