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.

Xzerios wrote: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.

This will be quick.... When placing the token for EL, are you doing that during the SA??? Specifically, during "Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit at this stage..."

So please, tell us in EL

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)


where are you allowed to place a token during SA? Seeings how EL is a special rule, and how it has no mention of SA, and is not specific in regards to removed from play in any way, because it is a blanket statement ( I say again)! So no, page 7 general versus specific does not take presidence here. Because the Codex is in no way more specific then the BRB rule. The BRB rule spells out what it is does, and what you need to do, and how if there are anyways to counteract its effects. Since EL, is not more specific, and does not have any rule in it allowing you to counter act the result of an SA you cannot use it.

Futhermore, if you take every single line of SA to be on its own then the special rule sentence never kicks in. They are linked, the work together, they are the same rule. Spliting hairs does nothing but cloud the issue.

The line right after, "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties." restricts the use of rules and saves, unless otherwise specified. So at this point it brings you back to the first problem I posed. Where in EL does it state you may place the token (SPECIFICALLY) during SA?



Also, for those of you trying to argue that the SA has happened and the the EL rule is used after that, you place the token when the model is removed yes? During the time of SA, so the EL rule is already being used. This invalidates you arguement of the SA has concluded and we go to end of phase. You are using a special rule during SA, which is not allowed, unless otherwise specified.....

Last post I swear.
If at "this stage" is a continuous effect, then the SA unit is carrying out a section of the assault phase for the rest of the game, hence no shooting or moving or asaulting. Since that would be fantastical, I think it is clear that at this stage refers to the SA. SA has been a moment in time or "subphase" since 3rd ed, when SA used to mean, charge on into another combat(if you got the distance).

The wording of the SA assault section has changed, the inclusion of removed as a casualty has changed. This is why wbb is not a analogous rule anymore and the 5th ed arguments on EL boiled down to express permission unless I am completely mistaken.
The reason I used to be against EL coming back in 5th ed is that it had no express permission to do so. NOW it has. This was a bone of contention for a few people who disagree with me now.
Having "for them the battle is over" in a different clause to at this stage is flavour text as I read it but it has no impact on the previous clause.

Since SAVES are defined in the brb as saving throws and saving throws are not allowed you must prove that EL is a saving throw. Does that unit make a save at this time? Is a dice rolled during the SA phase of assault?

A special rule has express permission in itself to do be carried out when removed as as casualty. If not and "for them the battle is over" is the thing you hang your hat on. Then page 2 under wounds "so badly hurt that it can't fight any more" would also in all cases prevent EL. RAW.

Out of interest, if EL said ANY time this model is RPFaaC would this argument be going on? Since it is of a higher order of rules codex>brb can it not be assumed that it is of greater import. What we actually have here is a brb vs codex issue and the brb even tells us how to resolve this.

Liturgies, if using EL is not a special rule that saves the unit, why did the 4th edition rulebook, specifically use WBB as am example of a special rule that saves a unit?

rigeld2 wrote:Can you cite rules support for "at this stage" meaning only for the time while SA is resolving?

These types of requests don't make any sense to me. I don't think you ought be requesting specific rules citation for a phrase plucked out of a section of the rules while also stating your own definition of what you think it means. If you're going to be asking these questions you ought to be offering up your own rules citiation/support as well. I suspect that for each side there would be none. What you have to do is understand the context of the phrase in relation to the entire rule mechanic. Personally, there is no answer to the question you have framed. You rely upon your own reading comprehension skills to understand the rules entry. I also think that the'at this stage' is irrelevant to determining whether or not one is allowed to roll for EL.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote: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.

I think you're completely failing to understand the point he's making so it only seems to you that he's not addressing the issue. Your stance is overly simplistic. Rolling for EL does not invalidate what occurred through a successful SA. All SA does is destroy a unit with only a very specific way to avoid it. ATSKNF is currently the only way to do so. It is done is response to the SA. You may try to argue that EL is done in response to a SA seeing as how the rulebook has changed how the swept models are removed, but I would not agree. If EL prevented a model from being RFPaaC then I think you would have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't. The model must first be RFPaaC and then, at the end of the phase, you get a chance to see if comes back into play.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Can you cite rules support for "at this stage" meaning only for the time while SA is resolving?

These types of requests don't make any sense to me. I don't think you ought be requesting specific rules citation for a phrase plucked out of a section of the rules while also stating your own definition of what you think it means. If you're going to be asking these questions you ought to be offering up your own rules citiation/support as well. I suspect that for each side there would be none. What you have to do is understand the context of the phrase in relation to the entire rule mechanic. Personally, there is no answer to the question you have framed. You rely upon your own reading comprehension skills to understand the rules entry. I also think that the'at this stage' is irrelevant to determining whether or not one is allowed to roll for EL.

I worded it like that on purpose.

The phrase "at this stage" does not mean a single point in time - it means from here on out. So for you to define it as a single point in time would require rules.
And it is absolutely 100% relevant. No special rule can rescue the unit at this stage. That's what SA says.
The unit is destroyed. You attempt EL to bring back the model. The unit is no longer destroyed. You've rescued the unit. What rule is otherwise specifying?

rigeld2 wrote:

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?

There is no rule stopping the unit from coming back. There is a rule stopping the unit from being affected by a SA. The rule is that the unit must have a rule which specifically stops SA from working on them.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Liturgies, if using EL is not a special rule that saves the unit, why did the 4th edition rulebook, specifically use WBB as am example of a special rule that saves a unit?

Because it was the 4th edition rulebook. Which is no longer applicable or relevant to this discussion.


-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Can you cite rules support for "at this stage" meaning only for the time while SA is resolving?

These types of requests don't make any sense to me. I don't think you ought be requesting specific rules citation for a phrase plucked out of a section of the rules while also stating your own definition of what you think it means. If you're going to be asking these questions you ought to be offering up your own rules citiation/support as well. I suspect that for each side there would be none. What you have to do is understand the context of the phrase in relation to the entire rule mechanic. Personally, there is no answer to the question you have framed. You rely upon your own reading comprehension skills to understand the rules entry. I also think that the'at this stage' is irrelevant to determining whether or not one is allowed to roll for EL.

I worded it like that on purpose.

The phrase "at this stage" does not mean a single point in time - it means from here on out. So for you to define it as a single point in time would require rules.
And it is absolutely 100% relevant. No special rule can rescue the unit at this stage. That's what SA says.

This statement strikes me as purely subjective.

rigeld2 wrote:The unit is destroyed. You attempt EL to bring back the model. The unit is no longer destroyed. You've rescued the unit. What rule is otherwise specifying?

So? If the unit is no longer destroyed after the SA has been successfully executed how does that violate SA? Is it because you think it violates it only if you maintain your interpretation of 'at this stage' as well as the accompanying fluff.?

I'm sorry Yad, as much fun as this has been its actually getting ridiculous going round and round and round going over the same things and not getting anywhere. You can win the internets, so hooray for you. I'll keep playing the rules as written and you can play them however you want.

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The unit is destroyed. You attempt EL to bring back the model. The unit is no longer destroyed. You've rescued the unit. What rule is otherwise specifying?

So? If the unit is no longer destroyed after the SA has been successfully executed how does that violate SA. Ahh, it violates it only if you maintain your interpretation of 'at this stage' as well as the accompanying fluff. Yes?

How else do you interpret "at this stage"?
I don't care about accompanying fluff. I've never cited it.

SA rules wrote:Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage

Bringing the unit back from being destroyed is rescuing it. Doing so after SA is after this stage. Doing that without a special rule otherwise specifying is violating SA.

Yad - "cite", not "site"

You have NEVER addressed the rule "for them the battle is over" - not in any meaningful way, as you dismiss it as fluff. It isnt. It is a rule. Same as "at this stage", which is NOT defined as point in time when you pay any attention to the context of the rule, you yet again ignore.

If you wish to change the definition of something, provide a rule. that allows you to do so. Until you can do so, you are ignoring the basics of a rule

Finally, the "otherwise specified" rule has remained unchanged, UNCHANGED, in 3 editions. So it is as relevant to talk about the specific example of WBB now as it was in 4th and 5th. Your attempts to avoid the topic by claiming not to see that they are exac tly analogous beggars belief.

You can keep arguning, but your entire argument relies on ignoring the rules in favour of your rewriting.

"for them the battle is over"=remove as a casualty

"at this stage"= phase of CC as defined

Fragile wrote:"at this stage"= phase of CC as defined

Proof? Citation? Anything besides your opinion?

Fragile wrote:"for them the battle is over"=remove as a casualty

"at this stage"= phase of CC as defined

Prove it with rules.

Yad wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Liturgies, if using EL is not a special rule that saves the unit, why did the 4th edition rulebook, specifically use WBB as am example of a special rule that saves a unit?

Because it was the 4th edition rulebook. Which is no longer applicable or relevant to this discussion.

I disagree that it is not relevant to this discussion. The part of the rule that we are looking at has not changed for at least 3 editions (not sure about 3rd ed). The only part of the rule that has changed was the inclusion of being removed as a casualty. Had GW not specified that WBB is a special rule that not only saves a unit from destruction, but saves the unit even later than EL, should mean something regarding the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit".

Captain Antivas wrote:I'm sorry Yad, as much fun as this has been its actually getting ridiculous going round and round and round going over the same things and not getting anywhere. You can win the internets, so hooray for you. I'll keep playing the rules as written and you can play them however you want.

I'll take your comment and apology in the spirit is was offered

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - "cite", not "site"

Sorry Mom

nosferatu1001 wrote:You have NEVER addressed the rule "for them the battle is over" - not in any meaningful way, as you dismiss it as fluff. It isnt. It is a rule. Same as "at this stage", which is NOT defined as point in time when you pay any attention to the context of the rule, you yet again ignore.

If you wish to change the definition of something, provide a rule. that allows you to do so. Until you can do so, you are ignoring the basics of a rule

This is nonsensical. I have no desire to change the definition of something. I'm simply pointing out your continued errors in interpreting the SA and EL rule mechanics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Finally, the "otherwise specified" rule has remained unchanged, UNCHANGED, in 3 editions. So it is as relevant to talk about the specific example of WBB now as it was in 4th and 5th. Your attempts to avoid the topic by claiming not to see that they are exac tly analogous beggars belief.

You can keep arguning, but your entire argument relies on ignoring the rules in favour of your rewriting.

First, thanks for your permission to allow me to keep arguing I really appreciate it. Now I don't have to cancel my ISP service. Second, I have never challenged the 'otherwise specified' rule. In fact I'm in complete agreement as to what a unit must have as a special rule to avoid being swept. Time and again you fail to comprehend what I've posted.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

Yad wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Liturgies, if using EL is not a special rule that saves the unit, why did the 4th edition rulebook, specifically use WBB as am example of a special rule that saves a unit?

Because it was the 4th edition rulebook. Which is no longer applicable or relevant to this discussion.

I disagree that it is not relevant to this discussion. The part of the rule that we are looking at has not changed for at least 3 editions (not sure about 3rd ed). The only part of the rule that has changed was the inclusion of being removed as a casualty. Had GW not specified that WBB is a special rule that not only saves a unit from destruction, but saves the unit even later than EL, should mean something regarding the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit".

So you really want to use, as precedent, rules from previous editions to shape your interpretation of current edition rules? I find that a bit odd.

-Yad

I love how the people fighting against EL act as if theirs is the only possible explanation.

Look it is fuzzy. It didn't work before, but there's some changed language and I think anyone with half a brain would acknowledge that we can't be sure 100% how this is supposed to work. High level FAQs have already said it does.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.1-DRAFT.pdf

I know you don't seem to care about this at all because you can't possibly be wrong, so please, continue to act as if you are the only ones that can see into GW's very hazy crystal ball.

Normally, I don't think GW's FAQ process gives any reason to say one person was right or wrong originally. But given the attitudes of people in this thread, I really can't wait to see what they say.

Killjoy00 wrote:Look it is fuzzy. It didn't work before, but there's some changed language and I think anyone with half a brain would acknowledge that we can't be sure 100% how this is supposed to work. High level FAQs have already said it does.

High level FAQs have already said other things that are just wrong as well - and don't clarify everything either. So citing them is pretty useless.
And the people arguing for it working are citing the same arguments as in 5th edition because the rule didn't change where it needed to.

I know you don't seem to care about this at all because you can't possibly be wrong, so please, continue to act as if you are the only ones that can see into GW's very hazy crystal ball.

Yeah, I've totally ignored everyone else and decided I cannot be wrong.
Or... no one has proven otherwise yet. You know, either way.

Normally, I don't think GW's FAQ process gives any reason to say one person was right or wrong originally. But given the attitudes of people in this thread, I really can't wait to see what they say.

If GW changes the rule in a FAQ then they change the rule. I'll disagree with the change, but won't have a problem playing it that way.

@rigeld2: Perhaps this will better elucidate my viewpoint.

I hold the SA rule mechanic to be an action that takes place during the normal course of play. It has very specific pre-conditions (i.e., entrance criteria). It has very specific exit criteria. Once you've satisfied the exit criteria you are done with the action and move on to the remaining actions left in that phase of the player's turn.

There is, in my opinion, nothing in the SA rule that states it has an effect on the remainder of the Assault phase. In my opinion attempts to do so (e.g., for them the battle is over fluff; at this stage extension) are twisting the rule mechanic into something it's not.

Obviously you disagree and I understand the argument(s) you've been making. I simply disagree with your take on it. No harm, no foul.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Killjoy00 wrote:I love how the people fighting against EL act as if theirs is the only possible explanation.


I know you don't seem to care about this at all because you can't possibly be wrong, so please, continue to act as if you are the only ones that can see into GW's very hazy crystal ball.

A caution about saying that 'you know'. In my experience, it tends to get folks hackles raised if they think you have some insight into their thought process or come off looking as you have the authority to speak their mind. I suspect that that is not what your intent was. Perhaps you meant something like, "In my opinion, based off of the the post I've read of yours in this thread so far, you ..." But don't take my word for it, I'm not a mod This is just me 'speaking' anecdotally.

Killjoy00 wrote:Normally, I don't think GW's FAQ process gives any reason to say one person was right or wrong originally. But given the attitudes of people in this thread, I really can't wait to see what they say.

eh, I would say that there have been instances where the GW FAQ process has done exactly this. The SW Counter-Attack + Furious Charge codex/FAQ fiasco is one example.

-Yad

Killjoy00 wrote:I love how the people fighting against EL act as if theirs is the only possible explanation.

Look it is fuzzy. It didn't work before, but there's some changed language and I think anyone with half a brain would acknowledge that we can't be sure 100% how this is supposed to work. High level FAQs have already said it does.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.1-DRAFT.pdf

I know you don't seem to care about this at all because you can't possibly be wrong, so please, continue to act as if you are the only ones that can see into GW's very hazy crystal ball.

Normally, I don't think GW's FAQ process gives any reason to say one person was right or wrong originally. But given the attitudes of people in this thread, I really can't wait to see what they say.

I'm sorry. Let me just change my point of view because you say I should. But, then wouldn't that make you just like me? I mean, since I expect everyone to change their points of view simply because I say so, why are you expecting me to change mine simply because you say so? Prove me wrong and I will admit it, I have before on this forum, so your claim is without merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:I hold the SA rule mechanic to be an action that takes place during the normal course of play. It has very specific pre-conditions (i.e., entrance criteria). It has very specific exit criteria. Once you've satisfied the exit criteria you are done with the action and move on to the remaining actions left in that phase of the player's turn.

We understand your point of view. It is not supported by the rules.

Yad wrote:I hold the SA rule mechanic to be an action that takes play during the normal course of play. It has very specific pre-conditions (i.e., entrance criteria). It has very specific exit criteria. Once you've satisfied the exit criteria you are done with the action and move on to the remaining actions left in that phase of the player's turn.

There is, in my opinion, nothing in the SA rule that states it has an effect on the remainder of the Assault phase. In my opinion attempts to do so (e.g., for them the battle is over fluff; at this stage extension) are twisting the rule mechanic into something it's not.

So are all rules transitory? That's what you're implying here.
"Why are you putting that guy back on the table?" "Oh, you wounded him last round - not this one."

If you're not trying to imply that all rules are transitory, what is your criteria for making them last? Why is "at this stage" not enough?

Captain Antivas wrote:

Yad wrote:I hold the SA rule mechanic to be an action that takes place during the normal course of play. It has very specific pre-conditions (i.e., entrance criteria). It has very specific exit criteria. Once you've satisfied the exit criteria you are done with the action and move on to the remaining actions left in that phase of the player's turn.

We understand your point of view. It is not supported by the rules.

I'm sure you also understand that that I feel the same way about your position

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Yad wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Liturgies, if using EL is not a special rule that saves the unit, why did the 4th edition rulebook, specifically use WBB as am example of a special rule that saves a unit?

Because it was the 4th edition rulebook. Which is no longer applicable or relevant to this discussion.

I disagree that it is not relevant to this discussion. The part of the rule that we are looking at has not changed for at least 3 editions (not sure about 3rd ed). The only part of the rule that has changed was the inclusion of being removed as a casualty. Had GW not specified that WBB is a special rule that not only saves a unit from destruction, but saves the unit even later than EL, should mean something regarding the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit".

So you really want to use, as precedent, rules from previous editions to shape your interpretation of current edition rules? I find that a bit odd.

-Yad

When the part of the rule I am looking at is exactly the same as 4th edition and 5th edition, yes I will use precedent from previous rulebooks. If that part of the rule had actually changed (e.g. rules for power weapons), I would not use it as a precedent. If the rulebook never specified that WBB was not a special rule that saves the unit, then I would actually agree with you that with the addition of the unit being removed as casualties is sufficient to allow EL. However, as it stands, we agree to disagree, and next year we will argue about this all over again as GW most likely won't FAQ it..

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:I hold the SA rule mechanic to be an action that takes play during the normal course of play. It has very specific pre-conditions (i.e., entrance criteria). It has very specific exit criteria. Once you've satisfied the exit criteria you are done with the action and move on to the remaining actions left in that phase of the player's turn.

There is, in my opinion, nothing in the SA rule that states it has an effect on the remainder of the Assault phase. In my opinion attempts to do so (e.g., for them the battle is over fluff; at this stage extension) are twisting the rule mechanic into something it's not.

So are all rules transitory? That's what you're implying here.
"Why are you putting that guy back on the table?" "Oh, you wounded him last round - not this one."

If you're not trying to imply that all rules are transitory, what is your criteria for making them last? Why is "at this stage" not enough?

First, because there is no formal definition of the term 'stage' as applying to a game/player turn. There is: Game Turn; Player Turn; Phase; Sub-phase. I could be wrong here (I'd have to check the BRB), but I don't think that there is such a thing as a stage. At least as an actual rule mechanic by which a certain action or actions can or cannot be taken. If you've got an digital version of the full BRB I'd ask you to do a search for the term Stage and see what you come up with. I'm not too enthusiastic about doing it in paper form

Secondly, because the context of the rule clearly (at least for me) indicates that it applies to the action of the SA destroying and removing (as a casualty) the affected unit. There is not sufficient context to then extend that through the remainder of the assault phase. You also need to deal with legally placed EL tokens. Both the ones that could have been placed before the unit was swept. and the ones that would have been placed as a result of being RFPaaC.

Finally, why do you think that the 'at this stage' bit should cover the entirety of the Assault phase?

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:

Yad wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Yad wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Liturgies, if using EL is not a special rule that saves the unit, why did the 4th edition rulebook, specifically use WBB as am example of a special rule that saves a unit?

Because it was the 4th edition rulebook. Which is no longer applicable or relevant to this discussion.

I disagree that it is not relevant to this discussion. The part of the rule that we are looking at has not changed for at least 3 editions (not sure about 3rd ed). The only part of the rule that has changed was the inclusion of being removed as a casualty. Had GW not specified that WBB is a special rule that not only saves a unit from destruction, but saves the unit even later than EL, should mean something regarding the "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit".

So you really want to use, as precedent, rules from previous editions to shape your interpretation of current edition rules? I find that a bit odd.

-Yad

When the part of the rule I am looking at is exactly the same as 4th edition and 5th edition, yes I will use precedent from previous rulebooks. If that part of the rule had actually changed (e.g. rules for power weapons), I would not use it as a precedent. If the rulebook never specified that WBB was not a special rule that saves the unit, then I would actually agree with you that with the addition of the unit being removed as casualties is sufficient to allow EL. However, as it stands, we agree to disagree, and next year we will argue about this all over again as GW most likely won't FAQ it..

That makes no sense to me. Rules from previous editions should not be relevant to current edition YMDC discussions. Could you expand upon why you think that should be allowed as a valid argument tactic? Because to me that is not a valid way of establishing precedent. An example of what would be a valid way of establishing precedent would be if a codex or a codex FAQ introduced some ambiguity into a specific rule mechanic. To resolve the ambiguity you look toward other codeces and FAQs to find similar instances where this ambiguity has been definitively answered. I could be misinterpreting what you're saying here, but stating that, 'oh this was answered back in edition X so we should play it this way', does not strike me as acceptable.

-Yad

Yad wrote:First, because there is no formal definition of the term 'stage' as applying to a game/player turn. There is: Game Turn; Player Turn; Phase; Sub-phase. I could be wrong here (I'd have to check the BRB), but I don't think that there is such a thing as a stage. At least as an actual rule mechanic by which a certain action or actions can or cannot be taken. If you've got an digital version of the full BRB I'd ask you to do a search for the term Stage and see what you come up with. I'm not too enthusiastic about doing it in paper form

Manifesting Psychic Powers is the only other non-fluff place it appears. If there's no rule mechanic associated, we have to fall back to basic English, and the phrase means from this point forward.

page 67 wrote:Different psychic powers are used at different stages in the turn; some powers are used at the start of the turn, others are used at the start of a particular phase, or might replace a
model's normal action within that phase.

(Emphasis mine)

Secondly, because the context of the rule clearly (at least for me) indicates that it applies to the action of the SA destroying and removing (as a casualty) the affected unit. There is not sufficient context to then extend that through the remainder of the assault phase. You also need to deal with legally placed EL tokens. Both the ones that could have been placed before the unit was swept. and the ones that would have been placed as a result of being RFPaaC.

There's only no sufficient context if you ignore "at this stage". Seriously, are you calling that phrase fluff?

Finally, why do you think that the 'at this stage' bit should cover the entirety of the Assault phase?

Because of what the phrase means.

Yad, in my opinion, rules that are different should have no bearing in YMDC (unless you are discussing that specific edition). I'm not saying we should play using 4th ed rules. I am saying that in this specific instance, the exact same wording is used, and looking at an example that was given for how the rule interacts with other rules, makes sense.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:First, because there is no formal definition of the term 'stage' as applying to a game/player turn. There is: Game Turn; Player Turn; Phase; Sub-phase. I could be wrong here (I'd have to check the BRB), but I don't think that there is such a thing as a stage. At least as an actual rule mechanic by which a certain action or actions can or cannot be taken. If you've got an digital version of the full BRB I'd ask you to do a search for the term Stage and see what you come up with. I'm not too enthusiastic about doing it in paper form

Manifesting Psychic Powers is the only other non-fluff place it appears. If there's no rule mechanic associated, we have to fall back to basic English, and the phrase means from this point forward.

page 67 wrote:Different psychic powers are used at different stages in the turn; some powers are used at the start of the turn, others are used at the start of a particular phase, or might replace a
model's normal action within that phase.

(Emphasis mine)

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Secondly, because the context of the rule clearly (at least for me) indicates that it applies to the action of the SA destroying and removing (as a casualty) the affected unit. There is not sufficient context to then extend that through the remainder of the assault phase. You also need to deal with legally placed EL tokens. Both the ones that could have been placed before the unit was swept. and the ones that would have been placed as a result of being RFPaaC.

There's only no sufficient context if you ignore "at this stage". Seriously, are you calling that phrase fluff?

I'm not ignoring "at this stage". I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of it. The only fluff part of that sentence is the bit about "for them the battle is over". Everything else would constitute an actual rule. I think you just executing it incorrectly.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Finally, why do you think that the 'at this stage' bit should cover the entirety of the Assault phase?

Because of what the phrase means.

You're equating stage to effectively mean, "for the remainder of the Assault phase". I think that's a subjective interpretation. To me a more reasonable take on the language is, when resolving the SA, and only when resolving the SA, the unit must have a specific rule to avoid its affect.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Finally, why do you think that the 'at this stage' bit should cover the entirety of the Assault phase?

Because of what the phrase means.

You're equating stage to effectively mean, "for the remainder of the Assault phase". I think that's a subjective interpretation. To me a more reasonable take on the language is, when resolving the SA, and only when resolving the SA, the unit must have a specific rule to avoid its affect.

No, I'm equating the phrase "at this stage" to mean that, not the word "stage".
It's not a subjective definition, it's how the phrase is used in plain English.

Happyjew wrote:Yad, in my opinion, rules that are different should have no bearing in YMDC (unless you are discussing that specific edition). I'm not saying we should play using 4th ed rules. I am saying that in this specific instance, the exact same wording is used, and looking at an example that was given for how the rule interacts with other rules, makes sense.

EL is sufficiently different from WBB so as to, in my mind, render it [WBB] irrelevant to these discussions. My opinion is that each edition and the most current Codices and FAQs should be understood in a vacuum, isolated from previous editions. However much the rule or rules are identical to previous editions they have zero relevance to the current one. From our perspective, they shouldn't exist unless you're actually playing a game with the previous editions rules. A bit draconian perhaps

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Finally, why do you think that the 'at this stage' bit should cover the entirety of the Assault phase?

Because of what the phrase means.

You're equating stage to effectively mean, "for the remainder of the Assault phase". I think that's a subjective interpretation. To me a more reasonable take on the language is, when resolving the SA, and only when resolving the SA, the unit must have a specific rule to avoid its affect.

No, I'm equating the phrase "at this stage" to mean that, not the word "stage".
It's not a subjective definition, it's how the phrase is used in plain English.

Okie-dokie, this what I think the phrase, "at this stage" equates to:

"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this [point, period, or step in the Assault Phase]; for them the battle is over. EL does not rescue or save the unit from destruction at that point, period, or step in the Assault phase. Therefore, you must roll for legally placed EL tokens at the end of the Assault phase.

Your definiion:

"Unless otherwise stated, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this [Phase]; for them the battle is over." EL does rescue/save the unit from destruction in the phase that it was swept. Therefore, you cannot roll for legally placed EL tokens at the end of that Assault phase.

Did I capture that correctly? I'm actually having a bit of trouble trying to equate your definition as I don't think it's correct. I'm going by what I think the word stage means.

-Yad




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:No, I'm equating the phrase "at this stage" to mean that, not the word "stage".
It's not a subjective definition, it's how the phrase is used in plain English.

Hmm, how can you differentiate between the definition of "at this stage" and the actual word "stage". Isn't that the whole point of that sentence? It's using 'stage' as a noun.

I might be being a bit dense here, but I don't get what your trying to do.

-Yad

In any case, the FAQ clarifies this rule nicely now.

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? (p29)

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.

Is this restricted to shooting or any specific way models are removed? No. Is there any restriction placed on this answer? No.

If ever EL wasn't clear, this FAQ answers the question regarding SA now.

The FAQ does not mention SA at all.

Nemesor Dave wrote:In any case, the FAQ clarifies this rule nicely now.

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? (p29)

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.

Is this restricted to shooting or any specific way models are removed? No. Is there any restriction placed on this answer? No.

If ever EL wasn't clear, this FAQ answers the question regarding SA now.

I'm not really on board with this FAQ Q&A offering a definitive answer (though honestly I don't think one is needed ). The nice thing about this FAQ is that GW has equated 'Wiped Out' with RFPaaC for the purposes of RP/EL. So for folks who don't play that all methods of unit removal are identical for the purposes of RP/EL this is something to note.

-Yad