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.

time wizard wrote:

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."

Already edited my post; you ninja'd my self-edit.

Saldiven wrote:

Already edited my post; you ninja'd my self-edit.

Oops! Sorry about that!

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.

-Yad

The interpretation is not that any piece of wargear can be used when the model carrying is dead, but that a model that is dead is still part of the unit to which it originally belonged.

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: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).

I don't try to be rude - I said something similar earlier and was cussed at for it. If you'd read the thread you would have seen my reasoning and not have had to ask for it - which is why I assumed that you hadn't read it.

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.)

Would you mind explaining why you are defining "at this stage" as "at this point and not after"?

rigeld2 wrote:
Q2: Does bringing back the EL model un-destroy the unit?
Q3: Does un-destroying the unit "rescue" the unit from destruction?

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.

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.

So bringing a unit back from destruction is not a rescue?

A token is just that. A token. A marker.
The Model associated with that token is what counts.
A token isn't part of a unit, the model associated with it definatly is.
And it's the model returning that SA forbids. It's still part of the unit. Do what you like with the token.

time wizard wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Already edited my post; you ninja'd my self-edit.

Oops! Sorry about that!

No problem. When I catch myself being completely wrong about something, I try to fix it. Haha...I was hoping to have fixed it before suffering the embarrassment of people noticing my wrong-ness.

grendel083 wrote:

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.

1) I see the logic here. I have no contention that you can make an interpretation this way. The point being made by this statement is the model is already destroyed when it died the first time, which is also logical. We won't be able to reach an agreement most likely on this issue because we would a definition of destroyed. You say destroyed applies above and beyond where I say he was already destroyed. /ack

2) This is further to my original point which I implore you to revisit as my proof of the term 'rescue'. (I don't want to repeat it). The short is though that lacking a rule book definition of 'rescue', we go to the dictionary. A rescue must occur prior to some bad event. Since the sweep already killed the unit, the bad event has already occurred. EL then is not a rescue attempt but a resurrection attempt. Again, it is unlikely we will come to an agreement here as if you do not believe you are stretching the defintion of the word 'rescue' beyond its actual meaning, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Survivor19 wrote:

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.

This is a good summation of my point as well.

ngilstrap wrote: A rescue must occur prior to some bad event.

Absolutely, incontrovertibly incorrect.

Ship wreck victims are not rescued before the ship wrecks. Kidnap victims are not rescued before the kidnap. Assault victims are not rescued before the assault occurs. Victims of earthquakes are often rescued from the wreckage of buildings; it's safe to say having a building collapse on you is a bad event.

For something to be rescued, there absolutely must be either an imminently impending bad event, and ongoing bad event, or an already passed bad event.

These examples here show that your premise listed above is false, so therefore cannot be used as a logical basis for your argument.

ngilstrap wrote:A rescue must occur prior to some bad event.

I'm normally loathe to quote dictionary definitions, but that's just not true.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rescue

If you're trapped, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.
If you're destroyed, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.

I used the oxford dictionaries site because it's the closest to the OED (that I know of) and that's the "actual" English definition.

edit: I word can really. Promise I!

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: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).

I don't try to be rude - I said something similar earlier and was cussed at for it. If you'd read the thread you would have seen my reasoning and not have had to ask for it - which is why I assumed that you hadn't read it.

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.)

Would you mind explaining why you are defining "at this stage" as "at this point and not after"?

I think it's just the way we read the statement. When I asked for clarification earlier on your interpretation I didn't get how you were not reading it like I do either. Weird how the language works I suppose. (And why we have to engage in these discussion anyways!)

The way I read it (lacking a definition of "stage" mind you which is why I think we should probably just avoid this one altogether for discussion), I read as a layman's term of "at this point", stage meaning point in time. I would then view anything after that point as being 'another stage'. When you said "everything after" that made sense to me then because you are seeing the term "stage" (if I understand correctly) and saying something like, "you have met THIS stage, and no are proceeding" using stage like an accomplishment, which is also a correct reading. (Everytime I say stage I keep thinking of video game references?)

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Q2: Does bringing back the EL model un-destroy the unit?
Q3: Does un-destroying the unit "rescue" the unit from destruction?

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.

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.

So bringing a unit back from destruction is not a rescue?

ngilstrap wrote:To rescue you from a lion, I have to stop it from eating you. if it has already eaten you, I am not recuing you by bringing you back to life. At that point, I am resurrection (reanimating) you.

I see the logic, though, as to how that could be interpreted as a "rescue". I just think that it is stretching the definition of rescue to make it mean resurrect. Thus, although logical, I think that it is the weaker of the two interpretations. That doesn't make you wrong, me right, or a hill of beans, just a view point.

I see your point, but there are a few other things to consider.

The Lion rescue, the Lion could already be attacking you. you can rescue them from a good mauling. A rescue doesn't have to be 'from death'. Same with a Sweeping Advance. As mentioned in the rules the models can be "scattered, ripped apart or sent packing", a rescue is certainly possible from at least two of those. No resurection needed.

The word rescue is only an issue if SA means 'dead', which isn't necessarily the case.

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:A rescue must occur prior to some bad event.

I'm normally loathe to quote dictionary definitions, but that's just not true.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rescue

If you're trapped, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.
If you're destroyed, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.

I used the oxford dictionaries site because it's the closest to the OED (that I know of) and that's the "actual" English definition.

edit: I word can really. Promise I!

This not only serves your point but also mine which is why I think we will just inevitably end up disagreeing.

Your dictionary link provided has the main definition of "rescue" to be:

"save (someone) from a dangerous or difficult situation:"

It does not mean to undo a dangerous or difficult situation.

So here's the point in a nutshell.

1) The unit that is swept was not saved in any way from being swept. The event occurred, they were destroyed. (we agree here)
2) The unit may not be rescued at this stage (rulebook) and according to the definition of rescue above, that would mean saving them from being destroyed. The unit was destroyed (as per #1) and thus were not rescued. (this is a "duh" statement, we agree here)

3) After being destroyed, can a model attempt to EL to come back? The definition of rescue is not to "undo" but to "save". By #1 and #2 above, the model was already destroyed thus no save took place. When he comes back, this is a "resurrection" which is an "undo" not a rescue which is a "save".

Suffice it to say, again, I think your interpretation is entirely logical, and I see where you are coming from. I also think that my interpretation is well supported and logical. In a sense, we are both right. The only caveat is that we both think we are "more" right. The reason why I think I am more right in this case is because i believe that stretching the above defintion to mean "undo" is exactly that, a stretch of the definition of rescue.

Bottom line for both of us is, we really won't know till an FAQ comes out (if ever).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grendel083 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:To rescue you from a lion, I have to stop it from eating you. if it has already eaten you, I am not recuing you by bringing you back to life. At that point, I am resurrection (reanimating) you.

I see the logic, though, as to how that could be interpreted as a "rescue". I just think that it is stretching the definition of rescue to make it mean resurrect. Thus, although logical, I think that it is the weaker of the two interpretations. That doesn't make you wrong, me right, or a hill of beans, just a view point.

I see your point, but there are a few other things to consider.

The Lion rescue, the Lion could already be attacking you. you can rescue them from a good mauling. A rescue doesn't have to be 'from death'. Same with a Sweeping Advance. As mentioned in the rules the models can be "scattered, ripped apart or sent packing", a rescue is certainly possible from at least two of those. No resurection needed.

The word rescue is only an issue if SA means 'dead', which isn't necessarily the case.

I agree, it could be interpreted that way. The reason why I think it is "rescue from death" is because SA says it destroys the unit. So, I guess that leads that I am saying that the unit is NOT being "rescued" from destruction (death or whatever we want to refer to it as). I am saying it is being 'resurrected'.

Still a valid point though and I get how it could be read that way.

I created no strawman; I pointed out how your premise is flawed by giving examples. To prove a premise is flawed, you only have to show on instance that it is inaccurate.

I have to admit that the parsing you're doing between "rescue" and "resurrect" are absolutely amusing, from a rules debate standpoint. I haven't seen something this convoluted in a while.

Your biggest flaw is that you're focusing on the models and not the unit.

The ultimate "bad event" that can happen to a unit in a game is for it to be permanently removed from the board, with no chance to come back. My premise is that SA isn't that bad event, but merely something that triggers the bad event (being removed from the board, unable to return). Regardless of whether or not models were removed before the SA occurred, if one allows those models to come back to the table after the SA occurs, then the UNIT has not suffered the ultimate "bad event" that can happen in game terms. Using your own language, the UNIT has been rescued.

You argue that the SA is the bad event that has already happened, therefore there is no "rescue." My argument is that SA is merely the mechanism by which the real "bad event" occurs: a model/unit being permanently removed from the game board for the duration of the game. Anything that prevents a unit from being permanently removed from the game board has rescued that model/unit.

(Sorry to ramble; trying to type and do work at the same time.)

I gotta go, and am going to bow out of the conversation. I think my point has been made clearly enough to add to the discussion.

maybe if we get a clarification in INAT on the sweeping advance (already added to the request thread) and/or a GW FAQ, we'll come back make fun of whoever ends up being wrong.

ngilstrap wrote:I agree, it could be interpreted that way. The reason why I think it is "rescue from death" is because SA says it destroys the unit. So, I guess that leads that I am saying that the unit is NOT being "rescued" from destruction (death or whatever we want to refer to it as). I am saying it is being 'resurrected'.

Still a valid point though and I get how it could be read that way.

I get where you're coming from.

The way i'm reading it in game terms is
destroyed = removed (but not nessisarily dead)
rescued = returned to play (not nessisarily 'rescued from death')

It's a problem when rules and background fluff are combined in the same section. And also why I would avoid using a dictionary definition.

ngilstrap wrote:we'll come back make fun of whoever ends up being wrong.

How about no - that never ends well (no matter who "wins")

Saldiven wrote:I created no strawman; I pointed out how your premise is flawed by giving examples. To prove a premise is flawed, you only have to show on instance that it is inaccurate.

I have to admit that the parsing you're doing between "rescue" and "resurrect" are absolutely amusing, from a rules debate standpoint. I haven't seen something this convoluted in a while.

Your biggest flaw is that you're focusing on the models and not the unit.

The ultimate "bad event" that can happen to a unit in a game is for it to be permanently removed from the board, with no chance to come back. My premise is that SA isn't that bad event, but merely something that triggers the bad event (being removed from the board, unable to return). Regardless of whether or not models were removed before the SA occurred, if one allows those models to come back to the table after the SA occurs, then the UNIT has not suffered the ultimate "bad event" that can happen in game terms. Using your own language, the UNIT has been rescued.

You argue that the SA is the bad event that has already happened, therefore there is no "rescue." My argument is that SA is merely the mechanism by which the real "bad event" occurs: a model/unit being permanently removed from the game board for the duration of the game. Anything that prevents a unit from being permanently removed from the game board has rescued that model/unit.

(Sorry to ramble; trying to type and do work at the same time.)

By definition, creating examples which are ultimately not relevant is the creation of strawmen. Stating something like you can rescue sailors who have been ship wrecked, when we are clearly talking about something that has died, is that definition.

Saldiven wrote:
I have to admit that the parsing you're doing between "rescue" and "resurrect" are absolutely amusing, from a rules debate standpoint. I haven't seen something this convoluted in a while.

I'm thinking this line was just intended to be rude? You don't sound very amused, but more annoyed. Just in case, though, am I really trying to convolute the situation or is it the notion that you can rescue someone who has already died convolution?

Saldiven wrote:
The ultimate "bad event" that can happen to a unit in a game is for it to be permanently removed from the board, with no chance to come back. My premise is that SA isn't that bad event, but merely something that triggers the bad event (being removed from the board, unable to return). Regardless of whether or not models were removed before the SA occurred, if one allows those models to come back to the table after the SA occurs, then the UNIT has not suffered the ultimate "bad event" that can happen in game terms. Using your own language, the UNIT has been rescued.

You argue that the SA is the bad event that has already happened, therefore there is no "rescue." My argument is that SA is merely the mechanism by which the real "bad event" occurs: a model/unit being permanently removed from the game board for the duration of the game. Anything that prevents a unit from being permanently removed from the game board has rescued that model/unit.

(Sorry to ramble; trying to type and do work at the same time.)

We agree that removal from the board, ( i suppose but I will call this destruction) is the ultimate bad event. Regardless of if SA is the trigger or the attack that killed him prior to SA, he has been destroyed and removed.

I'm not arguing that SA is the bad event but rather destroyed is the bad event. The unit has been destroyed. EL does not try to rescue them from that. It tries to resurrect them after the fact.

Anyways! i'm at as per above. This was my last comment to respond to. Hope that helps!

The unit was destroyed

The unit is now not destroyed

Thus, the unit has been rescued.

It really doesnt get simpler than that. Not at all.

WBB never worked against SA, read your 4th ed rulebook, read the 5th ed one and note that the wording is exactly the same. WBB was the canonical example of a rule that did not work against SA. WBB, in regards this discussion, is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to EL and RP, it just occured at a later point in time.

So any argument that stands on "at this stage" being incorrectly interpreted to being a single instance (when in context it isnt - it is duration) already falls apart - it is ignorant of not only the current rules, but of rules history.

We're also right back at stage one - some people feel that rescuing the unit from status: destroyed isnt actually rescuing the unit, some others feel that the token isnt a member of the unit, despite the actual rules AND FAQ stating otherwise, and others are just making yet more rules up out of nowhere.

grendel083 wrote:It's a problem when rules and background fluff are combined in the same section. And also why I would avoid using a dictionary definition.

Absolutely. I wish GW and the other game makers would take a cue from the old Avalon Hill rules writers. GW could have lots of little fluff sections through the book, but the rules themselves should be presented in a dry and boring (but infinitely clear) outline format. Something like this:

I. Movement
A. Infantry Movement
1. Infantry models may move a total of 6" during the controlling player's Movement Phase.
a. This general rule may be modified by other game effects.
b. An infantry model may not move through friendly or enemy models.
c. An infantry model may not end it's movement partially or entirely occupying the space of another model's base.

Etc. Or something like that. I've always said that GW's liberal intermixing of fluff and rules makes a needlessly confusing set of rules and inspires unnecessary arguments.

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:A rescue must occur prior to some bad event.

I'm normally loathe to quote dictionary definitions, but that's just not true.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rescue

If you're trapped, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.
If you're destroyed, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.

I used the oxford dictionaries site because it's the closest to the OED (that I know of) and that's the "actual" English definition.

edit: I word can really. Promise I!

I agree with these definitions, but in this case we're not talking about a kidnapping or being trapped.

In this case we're talking about being killed and removed from play. You wouldn't say someone who was killed was rescued even if their body was found. EL doesn't rescue the model from the underworld - I'm trying not to stray into fluff territory with this. Certainly the normal concept of rescue in any life or death situation means to prevent death.

Likewise a model that is "reanimated" isn't rescued, but reanimated.

I would never refer to some models with RP that made their roll and consider them "rescued from dying". They died and reanimated.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:A rescue must occur prior to some bad event.

I'm normally loathe to quote dictionary definitions, but that's just not true.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rescue

If you're trapped, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.
If you're destroyed, the bad event has already happened. Rescuing means the bad event is being undone.

I used the oxford dictionaries site because it's the closest to the OED (that I know of) and that's the "actual" English definition.

edit: I word can really. Promise I!

I agree with these definitions, but in this case we're not talking about a kidnapping or being trapped.

In this case we're talking about being killed and removed from play. You wouldn't say someone who was killed was rescued even if their body was found. EL doesn't rescue the model from the underworld - I'm trying not to stray into fluff territory with this. Certainly the normal concept of rescue in any life or death situation means to prevent death.

Likewise a model that is "reanimated" isn't rescued, but reanimated.

I would never refer to some models with RP that made their roll and consider them "rescued from dying". They died and reanimated.

You've rescued the unit from destruction.

ngilstrap wrote:

I'm not arguing that SA is the bad event but rather destroyed is the bad event. The unit has been destroyed. EL does not try to rescue them from that. It tries to resurrect them after the fact.

Anyways! i'm at as per above. This was my last comment to respond to. Hope that helps!

It absolutely, absolutely does not matter whether or not bringing back the models happens after the fact.

The ultimate "bad event' that can happen to models on the game board is an on-going effect. As I said, that ultimate bad event is being removed from the table with no possibility of returning, not merely being removed from the table. If there is any possibility for the model to return, then they have not suffered the ultimate bad event. If at any point during the game, models or units come back to the table, that bad event has been avoided.

You want to look at merely being removed from the board as the "bad event," and only in the single, isolated instance of when the models/units are removed. I think that is entirely too narrow a focus. Just being removed from the board is not really a "bad event" if the models have a chance to return.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Likewise a model that is "reanimated" isn't rescued, but reanimated.

I would never refer to some models with RP that made their roll and consider them "rescued from dying". They died and reanimated.

Good job that SA is only concerned about the units status, and the fact the unit has been rescued. HOW the unit was rescued isnt relevant.

Rigeld2 wrote:
You've rescued the unit from destruction.

I see how it can be taken either way. A 3 wound model with EL comes back with 1 wound. Are zomebies rescued humans?

Saldiven wrote:
The ultimate "bad event' that can happen to models on the game board is an on-going effect.

This is what I've been saying all along. If you believe that SA is an on-going effect then you would believe EL does not work. If the unit perform Sweeping Advance at the end of the phase then I would agree.
This is why I ask:

Does Consolidation happen after Sweeping Advance, or at the same time? When does the Sweeping Advance action done by the winning unit end?

Nemesor Dave wrote: This is why I ask:

Does Consolidation happen after Sweeping Advance, or at the same time?

Main rulebook, page 33, 'Assault Phase Summary', '3 Resolve Combats', 5th bullet point, second sentence, "Units falling back from close combat must test to see if they successfully break off, if they fail they are destroyed. The winners may then consolidate their position."

Nemesor Dave wrote:When does the Sweeping Advance action done by the winning unit end?

"The destroyed unit is removed immediatley." After that, the sweeping advance action has certainly ended.

@ND:

I don't believe it matters when SA happens. SA isn't the ongoing effect that I mention.

The ongoing effect I mention is "being removed from the board with no possibility of returning." (Quoting myself.)

SA merely triggers that event. As such, it doesn't matter when it happens. There are tons of things that can cause a model or unit to leave the game board with no possibility of returning. For the vast majority of units in the game, suffering an unsaved wound is all it takes. Other models have rules that give those models varying abilities to return to the table after they have otherwise been removed. The rules for Sweeping Advance acknowledge that certain models/units have rules that allow them to avoid permanent removal from the board; and states that those rules must specifically exempt Sweeping Advance in order to trigger after Sweeping Advance occurs.

As such, I think timing is irrelevant as far as SA and EL/RP are concerned.

Careful time, ND may try to now claim that, since SA has "ended" any prohibition on rescuing the unit has ended.

Of course this is a terrible argument, as proven by the prior WBB rules and any non-convoluted reading of the rules, but hey, its likely.

It also got shot down the last time ND tried it.

time wizard wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:When does the Sweeping Advance action done by the winning unit end?

"The destroyed unit is removed immediatley." After that, the sweeping advance action has certainly ended.

So what? As I said before, SA is merely a trigger. The SA trigger might be "ended," but the end result of unit being removed with no chance of returning is ongoing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Careful time, ND may try to now claim that, since SA has "ended" any prohibition on rescuing the unit has ended.

Of course this is a terrible argument, as proven by the prior WBB rules and any non-convoluted reading of the rules, but hey, its likely.

It also got shot down the last time ND tried it.

I can follow his argument, but it requires too much of the Easter Egg hunting that GW stated years ago they do not put in their rules.

I'm a big fan of using the Occam's Razor argument: The least convoluted possible explanation is the most accurate.

The unit was destroyed

The unit is now not destroyed

Thus, the unit has been rescued.

Wrong. This is not how rescuing works.

The unit was about to be destroyed.
The unit was prevented from being destroyed and thus wasn't
The unit has been rescued

This is how rescuing works
Another example

The shipwreck survivors has been rescued

That means they are out of the immediate danger of drowning with the wreck/starving to death/etc and are now safe.

Oh well, i think the point has been made. I apoilogise for my tone, it may ahve been a tad obnoxiuos.

"for them the battle is over"

You bringing the models back removes this from being true, so you have STILL broken a rule.