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.

False, that makes no sense. SA cannot be avoided they have to interact with EL since SA says the model is removed as a casualty, which triggers EL. Claiming they do not interact is ignoring the rules.

SA doesn't have to say it interacts with EL, it says no Special Rule or save can rescue them. SA interacts with ALL Special rules, which EL is. EL has to say it protects against SA, which it doesn't. Once again the rules defy your interpretation of them.

Captain Antivas wrote:False, that makes no sense. SA cannot be avoided they have to interact with EL since SA says the model is removed as a casualty, which triggers EL. Claiming they do not interact is ignoring the rules.

SA doesn't have to say it interacts with EL, it says no Special Rule or save can rescue them. SA interacts with ALL Special rules, which EL is. EL has to say it protects against SA, which it doesn't. Once again the rules defy your interpretation of them.

I had momentarily forgotten about the change to 6th edition (which if you had read my previous posts you would have known I was aware of it). The interaction, or lack thereof is not what you mean it to be. That's the jist of the my take on these two rules.

-Yad

Yad - " To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA"

You have been asked to cite a rule for this many, many times, and you ignore it.

Do so.

You also ignore that "for them the battle is over" is a rule you MUST apply. You are not applying it. You have rescued a model from being unable to take part int eh battle, and so you are breaking the rule.

You are ignoring the posts I directly challenge you on, and responding to posts from other people who just dont get that "no special rule" means thast. I am AWARE you dont disagree with me on this point, however others DO disagree, and are doing so without a single shred of rules support whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - " To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA"

You have been asked to cite a rule for this many, many times, and you ignore it.

Do so.

You also ignore that "for them the battle is over" is a rule you MUST apply. You are not applying it. You have rescued a model from being unable to take part int eh battle, and so you are breaking the rule.

You are ignoring the posts I directly challenge you on, and responding to posts from other people who just dont get that "no special rule" means thast. I am AWARE you dont disagree with me on this point, however others DO disagree, and are doing so without a single shred of rules support whatsoever.

Just as you say Yad is ignoring your question of citing a rule you are ignoring his answer.

SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

At the end of the Assault phase when all combats have been resolved being draws wins with passed LD's or sweeping advances (when all theses rules criteria have been met )the Necron codex which trumps the BRB , give's all models with RP/EL a chance to stand back up with certain restrictions ,in the codex and the current FAQ the EL rule has less restrictions if any to RP .

End result ,you roll for the EL token and if he gets back up tough luck for your opponent .

Rules citations

Basic VS advanced, in the BRB read it

Ever living

If a model with this special rule is REMOVED FROM PLAY AS A CASUALTYdo not add a reanimation counter.
Instead place an Everliving counter where the model was removed from play .
At the end of the phase,roll for this counter ust as you would for reanimation protocols counter .

If the model had joined a unit when it was REMOVED FROM PLAY AS A CASUALTY,and the roll was passed ,it must returned to play with a single wound , in coherency with that unit as explained in reanimation protocols .
If the model had not joined unit when it was removed as a casualty , it must be returned to play ,with a single wound ,within 3" of the counter
In either case ,the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models .
If the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that it is eligible to join ,it automatically joins one of those units (your choice).
If the model was locked in combat when it 'died ,and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in .
If the returning model cannot be placed ,for whatever reason ,it is lost and does not return .
If the roll was failed ,remove the counter from play

Necron FAQ

Q
If an entire unit ,including an attached character from a royal court ,is wiped out , do you get to make any reanimation protocol rolls ?
A
You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Everliving special rule .
Note in this case ,he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out .

There ignore them if you will come back with the same old "but you saved the unit " argument ,or the "for them the battle is over " or anything else you want .
RAW supports Yad and me and everyone else saying you get to roll for the EL counter !!!!!!!!!!

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

Your asserting SA is ongoing through the whole game which you have never proved in the 5th (which is now irrelevant )and in the 6th

I have given rules citations as asked for

Just for a laugh,
1 Show me where its says it must specifically state it works re SA for the rule to be allowed .
2 Show me how after and event has taken place and all rules regarding it have been met that it has not ended .
3 Give me a rule citation that states in this case BRB trumps codex
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

I skimmed the past four pages to this point. For those arguing that SA prevents the EL token from coming back (if it made its EL roll and succeeded) per the RAW from SA, I point you to the direction of Basic Vs Advanced' last paragraph.

We can all define this particular situation is a RAW conflict of rules, yes? Theres your answer.


Do the ones arguing for it to not work after a SA think itll be fixed in a future errata for the codex? Hell yes. Most of us would agree that it should prevent the EL token/model from coming back after a SA is made. However, as it sits RAW rules-wise, the model is allowed to (potentially) come back after a SA.

not "END OF!!!!!!!", shockingly enough. You have ignored every single argument in here.

"FOR THEM, THE BATTLE IS OVER"

Or are you claiming the battle is point in time? You keep ignoring the rules, after all.

1) In the context of the rule. The thing you keep ignoring. The thing that ATSKNF exemplifies. Read it.

2) See above. Stop ignoring it.

3) "unless otherwise specified" Done. Stop ignoring it

4) So you continue to insult? You lost the argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

No need to prove SA is a single point in time. That's like saying I made my first armor save with a model, therefore I will apply that to every armor save I make all game. SA states "as this stage". SA is limiting itself. SA is also adding the possibility that something may "save" the unit "at a later stage". Otherwise there would be no need for them to add "at this stage" to the rule.

"at this stage" is not point in time, when you read the context. Neither is "for them the battle is over"

nosferatu1001 wrote:not "END OF!!!!!!!", shockingly enough. You have ignored every single argument in here.

"FOR THEM, THE BATTLE IS OVER"

Or are you claiming the battle is point in time? You keep ignoring the rules, after all.

1) In the context of the rule. The thing you keep ignoring. The thing that ATSKNF exemplifies. Read it.

2) See above. Stop ignoring it.

3) "unless otherwise specified" Done. Stop ignoring it

4) So you continue to insult? You lost the argument.

For the the battle is over part of the rule used over and over ,re read my post i addressed that and did not ignore it

Point 1 SA happens and the unit is RFPAAC again not ignored addressed

Point 2 LOL answered already many times El does not stop SA it happens at the end of the phase after SA has been resolved

Point 3 pointing out your argument is saying the same thing over and over and giving an example of how it appears hence the child reference whether you take it as insulting or not does not lose an argument ,show me where its says in the rules that if when proving your argument to be right you insult or are deemed to insult someone it total nullifies the rule and allows the party insulted to make the ruling in there favor ?

No, you did not. You said it HAS been addresed, but failed to actually do so.

Try again.

1) Nope, you just simply dont understand the "specified" requirement. READ ATSKNF. That is what "specified" means.

2) Nope, youre ignoring "the battle is over" (para) part. Again.

3) No, you are claiming that people repeating the rules over and over are being childish, when you have not cited rules that actually address the points given in the thread.

You have lost the argument from a debating point because, yet again in a thread you resorted to insults, breaking the tenets of the forum

snakel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

Your asserting SA is ongoing through the whole game which you have never proved in the 5th (which is now irrelevant )and in the 6th

I have given rules citations as asked for

Just for a laugh,
1 Show me where its says it must specifically state it works re SA for the rule to be allowed .
2 Show me how after and event has taken place and all rules regarding it have been met that it has not ended .
3 Give me a rule citation that states in this case BRB trumps codex
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

The unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued at this stage.
You're rescuing the unit and were still at this stage.

What "outdated" rules set have I quoted? Codex only trumps BRB when there's a conflict - there's no conflict.
The rule is done resolving. Part of the resolution to the rule is that the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued.

Or are you also going to argue that I can bring back a model that was removed for any reason - I've resolved the wound and pulled the model. Rules are over, but my army list says there's 10 guys. I'm going to put this guy back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - " To rescue/save a unit from an SA you have to stop the SA"

You have been asked to cite a rule for this many, many times, and you ignore it.

Do so.

This is the same tired line you run again and again. You completely ignore what the opposing viewpoint is arguing while endlessly repeating "site the rule, site the rule, site the rule" . When the folks here are invariably discussing the rule and offering logical support for their positions. Your reminding me of another poster we had here a while back, fellow that went by the name of Gwar. But just so your virtual head doesn't explode, I'll indulge you.

The only rules I need site is the one we've been discussing this whole thread, the SA and EL rules themselves. I would urge you to re-read the two rules and understand the text and context of them. The whole purpose of SA is to destroy a unit and cause them to be RFPaaC. The only was to save or rescue such a unit would be to stop the SA from destroying it. The only way that can happen is also listed in the SA rule. Another special rule must be in place that specifically negates the SA from occurring. The only one that I'm aware of that can do that is ATSKNF.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You also ignore that "for them the battle is over" is a rule you MUST apply. You are not applying it. You have rescued a model from being unable to take part int eh battle, and so you are breaking the rule.

You are ignoring the posts I directly challenge you on, and responding to posts from other people who just dont get that "no special rule" means thast. I am AWARE you dont disagree with me on this point, however others DO disagree, and are doing so without a single shred of rules support whatsoever.

Not even close to accurate. I could pull a Sophocles here and say that I get the sense you are, in regards to your responses to those of the opposing viewpoint, being deliberately obtuse, but that would be poor form My previous posts, and actually other folks here, have addressed this. If one actually accepts it as a rule and not as some descriptive flare to the actual mechanic of destroying the unit and removing them as casualties (which is what I think of it as), it still only reinforces the point about not being able to save/rescue the unit from a SA. Which is exactly what the EL rule does not do.

I've got a feeling this thread is quickly devolving into a virtual circular firing squad.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:SA takes place the unit is destroyed the you move on to any other assaults and resolve them (if there are any ) note by doing this SA has taken place the unit was destroyed and the victorious unit can consolidate heralding the end of SA its been done all rules followed END OF !!!!!

You're asserting SA is a single point in time.
You've never proven that - not in 5th and not in 6th (yet).

Your asserting SA is ongoing through the whole game which you have never proved in the 5th (which is now irrelevant )and in the 6th

I have given rules citations as asked for

Just for a laugh,
1 Show me where its says it must specifically state it works re SA for the rule to be allowed .
2 Show me how after and event has taken place and all rules regarding it have been met that it has not ended .
3 Give me a rule citation that states in this case BRB trumps codex
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

The unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued at this stage.
You're rescuing the unit and were still at this stage.

Rescuing the unit and were still at this stage? I'm having a bit of trouble dissecting what you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

rigeld2 wrote:What "outdated" rules set have I quoted? Codex only trumps BRB when there's a conflict - there's no conflict.
The rule is done resolving. Part of the resolution to the rule is that the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued.

Or are you also going to argue that I can bring back a model that was removed for any reason - I've resolved the wound and pulled the model. Rules are over, but my army list says there's 10 guys. I'm going to put this guy back.

That's just silly, you must know that's not what he means so why say it?

-Yad

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:
4 Tell me why after a clear and well made argument with RAW documentation and citations to back it up,is constantly put down when its clear the counter argument has no citation or documentation to back up it up and uses an outdated rule set, or quotes specific parts of the rule which have already been addressed several times, and are brought back up over and over ,just as a child repeats its self over and over and over in a vain attempt to get its own way ,is adding anything to this argument .?

The unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued at this stage.
You're rescuing the unit and were still at this stage.

Rescuing the unit and were still at this stage? I'm having a bit of trouble dissecting what you mean by this? Could you elaborate?

We've moved from the period of time the unit (not individual models which is what EL saves) exists to the one where the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued. We are at the stage of "cannot be rescued" for that unit.
Bringing the unit back (by allowing EL to resolve) rescues the unit - which cannot happen at this stage.

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:What "outdated" rules set have I quoted? Codex only trumps BRB when there's a conflict - there's no conflict.
The rule is done resolving. Part of the resolution to the rule is that the unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued.

Or are you also going to argue that I can bring back a model that was removed for any reason - I've resolved the wound and pulled the model. Rules are over, but my army list says there's 10 guys. I'm going to put this guy back.

That's just silly, you must know that's not what he means so why say it?

Because he's been so emphatic wording it that way multiple times. Saying that the rule is over and done and ignored because it's done resolving is ludicrous. It needed to be pointed out.

Im sorry rigeld2, however I feel the need to break it down for you.

In simplistic terms, the rules in the BRB for SA state that you may not put a model/unit back on the board after it has suffered from an SA. Yes?
The rules in the Necron codex for EL state that at the end of the phase, you roll for that marker, and place the model with EL back onto the board, following the rules for the three inch move per the faq.


Tell me how is that not a conflict.

*I might add here though, that it makes no sense to have a line like "no special rule or save may save them; For them, the battle is over" with Basic Vs Advanced in the same book.*

"logical support for their answers" = making up rules. Show the ruke, cite the rule. Your opinion and logical support is irrelevant unless supported by a rule.

To call EL a save is incorrect. In no way are you saving the unit from SA. SA destroys the unit and all models in the unit. Yes, ATSKNF mentions SA as part of the rule, but that effect is immediate - it does so to allow the unit to stay in combat. Models with EL and are not saved from being killed by SA. There is no rescue or save happening during SA.

Remember - Sweeping Advance is an action performed by a unit, an action done at a certain time and then stops when the unit performs a new action. This is basic - your blast marker does not sit on the table permanently hitting anything that moves into the spot, you pick it up when the effect is done. Your unit in combat has no permission to kill or prevent a special rule at the end of the phase after combat has ended.

Can you cite rules support for "at this stage" meaning only for the time while SA is resolving?

Nemesor Dave wrote:To call EL a save is incorrect. In no way are you saving the unit from SA. SA destroys the unit and all models in the unit. Yes, ATSKNF mentions SA as part of the rule, but that effect is immediate - it does so to allow the unit to stay in combat. Models with EL and are not saved from being killed by SA. There is no rescue or save happening during SA.

Remember - Sweeping Advance is an action performed by a unit, an action done at a certain time and then stops when the unit performs a new action. This is basic - your blast marker does not sit on the table permanently hitting anything that moves into the spot, you pick it up when the effect is done. Your unit in combat has no permission to kill or prevent a special rule at the end of the phase after combat has ended.

No one claims EL is a save. Do you even read any posts we write? You do, however, save the unit. They were destroyed, then nit destroyed. How is this not saving the unit?

The the folks arguing the point that SA doesnt allow a save or special rule from bringing them back. I urge you read the rule for EL. The model has died. It has satisfied the rules for SA as the model only gets to make its roll at the end of the phase. If you wish to argue the timing of SA, see the next portion.

For those arguing the point that EL brings the model back period, I point you to Basic Vs Advanced. As the two rules conflict with each other, we are told to go by the codex' rule.

Again, it seems absolutely silly to include such a rule as Basic Vs Advanced when folks know that this will clash specifically with SA and DoG rules. We can all agree that a BRB faq will over-rule the codex in -ONLY- those two instances.

And once again you spout words that do not actually address the point being made. Try again. And this time, do it without completely ignoring the arguments made before you.

Xzerios wrote:The the folks arguing the point that SA doesnt allow a save or special rule from bringing them back. I urge you read the rule for EL. The model has died. It has satisfied the rules for SA as the model only gets to make its roll at the end of the phase. If you wish to argue the timing of SA, see the next portion.

For those arguing the point that EL brings the model back period, I point you to Basic Vs Advanced. As the two rules conflict with each other, we are told to go by the codex' rule.

Again, it seems absolutely silly to include such a rule as Basic Vs Advanced when folks know that this will clash specifically with SA and DoG rules. We can all agree that a BRB faq will over-rule the codex in -ONLY- those two instances.

I don't care about the model.

The unit is destroyed and cannot come back. Bringing back a model also brings the unit back.
What rule is allowing you to bring the unit back?

Maybe you'll answer it this time.

Captain Antivas wrote:"logical support for their answers" = making up rules. Show the ruke, cite the rule. Your opinion and logical support is irrelevant unless supported by a rule.

Then 99% of your posts and the majority of this forum is irrelevant. GW does a poor job of spelling things out, so we have to use Logic to figure out what they mean. Just look at your own posts in the EW/FNP thread. Mostly logic based. Even breaking out definitions of words.

Well, because the choir has clamored for rules (which I would expect us all to be intimately familiar with at this point of the argument), I repeat them for us all.

The rules from Ever Living:

Pg 29 Necron Codex wrote:
If a model with this special rule is removed as a casuality, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols. If the model had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, it must be returned to play, with a single Wound, within 3" of the the counter. In either case, the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models. If the model is placed in coherency with one or more friendly units that is eligible to join, it automatically joins on of those units (your choice). If the model was locked in close combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in, if the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return. If the roll was failed, remove the counter from play.

(quote maintained, including the grammatical error)

EL requires that a token be placed when the model with this special rule is removed as a causality.
It rolls to come back at the end of the phase to complete this special rule.
It can be denied this special rule, see rule entry for requirements to deny it this special rule.

The rules for Sweeping Advances

Pg 27-28 BRB, quoted excerpt from page 28 wrote:

If the winner's total (Initiative + dice roll) is equal to or greater than the foe's, the falling back unit is caught by the Sweeping Advance and destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwise sent packing so demoralised that they won't return; its members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this state.; for them the battle is over.

(quote maintained, including the grammatical errors)

I italicized the portion that states the model is eligible for access to Ever Living.
I have underlined the parts that conflict with each other from the rules for the rules for Ever Living, and the rules for Sweeping Advances.

The rules from Basic Versus Advanced

Pg 7 BRB, last paragraph wrote:
On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.

This is the last portion of the argument. This is where it lands in the end. Basic Versus Advanced. My Ever Living rule from the Necron Codex conflicts with the rules for Sweeping Advances in the BRB. As the BRB states right here on page seven; My codex rule supersedes the rules for Sweeping Advances. Argumentative time frame of Sweeping Advances and all possible arguments from the side that claims Ever Living is unable to work against Sweeping Advances ended right there. At this point, no matter how you wish to argue it, the end result will forever be that the BRB comes into conflict with the codex and this tells us that the codex rule overwrites the BRB. Same argument applies to Death or Glory as it too calls that no special rule or save can allow the model that attempted Death or Glory to come back.


Is it stupid? Yes. Blame GW on crappy rules that contradict themselves IN THE BRB. Expect an Errata on these two rules on the errata update for the BRB.

You're misapplying page 7. But I'm done. Have fun when it never gets FAQed. Again. And we have this discussion in a few months. Again.

Explain how Basic Versus Advanced was miss-applied. In the RAW from both rules, they come into conflict. Show me with rules where I am wrong. I was able to indulge in your (and Captain Antivas') request for rules to be cited. Why, after no mercy was shown would you expect the same amnesty I sought? You may recall on page two where I started in here that I was very much on the side of it not working. I still am to a degree. I understand what GW intends for Sweeping Advances and Death or Glory to do, however as they are written and how the rules for Ever Living/Divine Intervention are written; They cause a conflict with the other rule, which requires us to default to Basic Versus Advanced.

*Arguing that the model isnt allowed the special rule per the last sentence is invalidated. The line right before that sentence (I italicized it) means that the model has been given access to Ever Living by Sweeping Advances. This is why Basic Versus Advanced is brought in. If we arent going to follow the normal flow of sentence structure, Ill just start reading the book in Japanese standard sentence structure. :|*

Xzerios wrote:Explain how Basic Versus Advanced was miss-applied. In the RAW from both rules, they come into conflict. Show me with rules where I am wrong. I was able to indulge in your (and Captain Antivas') request for rules to be cited. Why, after no mercy was shown would you expect the same amnesty I sought? You may recall on page two where I started in here that I was very much on the side of it not working. I still am to a degree. I understand what GW intends for Sweeping Advances and Death or Glory to do, however as they are written and how the rules for Ever Living/Divine Intervention are written; They cause a conflict with the other rule, which requires us to default to Basic Versus Advanced.

I'll try bold this time.

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't care about the model.

The unit is destroyed and cannot come back. Bringing back a model also brings the unit back.
What rule is allowing you to bring the unit back?

You're misapplying page 7 because there isn't a rule stopping the model from coming back - there's a rule stopping the unit from coming back.
There's no conflict because EL deals with models, not units.
See the difference?

Page 3 Necron Codex Errata wrote:
Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (Pg 29)

A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-Living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out.

If you follow that through to its conclusion, we end right back at Basic Versus Advanced. The model that has Ever Living is the last model in that unit as it doesnt become its own brand new unit. Sweeping Advances says the unit caught by the Sweeping Advance may not come back. Conflict of rules once again.

Fragile wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:"logical support for their answers" = making up rules. Show the ruke, cite the rule. Your opinion and logical support is irrelevant unless supported by a rule.

Then 99% of your posts and the majority of this forum is irrelevant. GW does a poor job of spelling things out, so we have to use Logic to figure out what they mean. Just look at your own posts in the EW/FNP thread. Mostly logic based. Even breaking out definitions of words.

There is a vast difference between "logical support" and "logical support with rules." Notice the last part where I say your logical support matters only with a rules support as well? Try reading the whole thought before replying.