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.

Icemyn wrote:1) I have never stated that it would come back as a new unit in fact that is clearly against the rules for EL in the Necron Codex.

2) What I disagree on is the definition of destroy and the timing of SA. SA clearly states "at this stage" which opens the door for rescuing or saving at future stages.

3)With regards to the definition of destroy meaning intrinsically that a unit cannot be rescued is ludicrous both in rules and game function if GW meant for that meaning of "destroyed" why print the text following about not being able to be saved by any means? It would seem to be redundant. Going Further the one definition that was put forward is from one website with others having different definitions and that one website mentioning other competing definitions who are we to decide which definition to choose or to say that GW uses dictionary.com?

You want more dictionaries? Ok, here you are.

http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=destroy

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/destroy

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy?rdfrom=Destroy

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/destroy

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=destroy

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=destroy&goquery=Find+it!&Language=ENG

Every single one includes the SPECIFIC mention that something which is destroyed cannot be repaired. I hope we are now finished with that particular objection.

GW repeats itself just as much as anyone does. They're writing idiomatically, and in YMDC we are reading literally. Why is the Sahara Desert called that when 'sahara' means 'desert'? Why do we talk about PIN numbers when PIN stands for Personal Identification Number? Because people don't use language strictly, that's why, and that goes for GW writers just as much as anyone else.

Now; decide whether you're reading idiomatically or literally. Either is fine, but what you're doing right now is flip-flopping.

If you're reading idiomatically, then "at this stage" is a common, idiomatic English phrase which means "after this point in time" , and you can't ever bring the unit back because it will never NOT be "after that point in time" once the SA has happened.

If you're reading literally, then "destroyed" means "gone and never coming back", and you can't ever bring the unit back because then it wouldn't be destroyed.

Pick one.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy

Two dictionary sites that dont have beyond repair mentioned.
So no we are not done with this argument about the definition of destroy.

The only way to read a rule is literally otherwise you are applying an opinion where none is allowed.

I dont know where you see the flip flopping I have clearly stated my interpretation on this and have never
tryed to imply a meaning, and personally I dont appreciate the personal attacks in a rules debate.
There may or may not be forum rules against that sort of thing.

Icemyn wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy

Use English instead of American.

Like when they say "majority" and Americans get confused.
Similar issue, more syllables.

Icemyn wrote:So no we are not done with this argument about the definition of destroy.

That is because of the definition of "we" not because of the definition of "destroy."

i love this thread but i'm going to unsubscribe to it. because it is blowing up my inbox ...lol

Icemyn wrote:The only way to read a rule is literally otherwise you are applying an opinion where none is allowed.

That's demonstrably false.

Captain on a bike can embark on a Land Raider/Rhino/Razorback. Captain is Infantry, Infantry have specific permission to embark, page 100 in the SM Codex says that SMs on bikes follow the rules for bikes (note - does not change unit type).
There is nothing that says bikes cannot embark - the only reason they can't is that the unit type is not Infantry.

That's the easiest one to bring up - there are plenty more.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:The only way to read a rule is literally otherwise you are applying an opinion where none is allowed.

That's demonstrably false.

Captain on a bike can embark on a Land Raider/Rhino/Razorback. Captain is Infantry, Infantry have specific permission to embark, page 100 in the SM Codex says that SMs on bikes follow the rules for bikes (note - does not change unit type).
There is nothing that says bikes cannot embark - the only reason they can't is that the unit type is not Infantry.

That's the easiest one to bring up - there are plenty more.

I do not understand what you are trying to prove with this point?
You have only proven that with a literal reading of what is infantry and what is not you can determine what is allowed to embark or disembark.
Unless there is something I am missing.
Again this isnt an attack on you I just believe something was lost in translation.
is the follows the rules for bikes but doesn't become a biker debate? If so then RAW I see no issue with him riding in a LR.

Icemyn wrote:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy

Two dictionary sites that dont have beyond repair mentioned.
So no we are not done with this argument about the definition of destroy.

The only way to read a rule is literally otherwise you are applying an opinion where none is allowed.

I dont know where you see the flip flopping I have clearly stated my interpretation on this and have never
tryed to imply a meaning, and personally I dont appreciate the personal attacks in a rules debate.
There may or may not be forum rules against that sort of thing.

I'm not trying to launch a personal attack; I'm pointing out that your argument is inconsistent.

The point I'm making with the definitions is that 'destroy' is an extremely definite word. Look at the synonyms; annihilate, demolish, raze. And the antonyms; repair, restore, create. If you destroy something, that thing is GONE. It won't be coming back; perhaps you can glue the pieces back together if you can find them all, but what you've done then is make a different (and worse) object out of the wreckage; the first one still has not returned. A literal reading of a rule that includes the word 'destroy' must come to the conclusion that the effects cannot be undone. Since this is a game system, of course, you have to make an exception for things which specifically say that they counteract the effect, but otherwise, none. If you read that portion of the rule literally, there's no argument to be made. It requires an idiomatic reading (that is, reading the word in the sense that it might be used in casual conversation; "The Patriots destroyed the Giants in the game last night") to claim that destruction is reversible.

"At this stage" or "at this point" literally means "right now, and no other time"; which means anything prohibited "at this stage" would be allowed later on. Idiomatically, however, it generally means "after this point"; "At this point, the conversation was over". It's used to indicate finality, an ending.

If you read the whole rule literally, "at this stage" doesn't stop you from bringing someone back later, but "destroyed" does. If you read the whole rule idiomatically, "destroyed" doesn't stop you, but "at this stage" does. In order to interpret the rule as giving permission to bring the affected unit back, you have to read "at this stage" literally and THEN switch over to read "destroyed" idiomatically; and that's not logically consistent.

@Berzerker - I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it.

Even if your Idiomatic assertion regarding "at this stage" has in your opinion a general meaning, by definition It doesn't apply to all cases. Additionally, I don't agree that "at this stage" has the definition you mentioned.

You can disregard that last paragraph entirely because I have no intention of arguing an idiomatic definition.

As for the literal definition I don't believe that destroyed has a RAW interpretation that you are lending it.
I have previously stated why I believe that so there is no reason to rehash it here. As you have already shown destroyed has multiple meanings and anti meanings depending on the source you quote. My opinion is that to go outside of the BRB or codex to infer a definition that is not stated will carry no weight in a RAW discussion.

To respond to your edit: I have never asserted an idiomatic definition of destroyed. I have asserted from the beginning that it does not carry cannot be repaired as part of its meaning with regards to RAW.

Icemyn wrote:My opinion is that to go outside of the BRB or codex to infer a definition that is not stated will carry no weight in a RAW discussion.

While I applaud you on your stance, this path leads to insanity.

What is the definition of removed?
What is the definition of inches?
Is a model that has 3 special weapons able to attack?

Do I need to go further?

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:My opinion is that to go outside of the BRB or codex to infer a definition that is not stated will carry no weight in a RAW discussion.

While I applaud you on your stance, this path leads to insanity.

What is the definition of removed?
What is the definition of inches?
Is a model that has 3 special weapons able to attack?

Do I need to go further?

Apologies I should have clarified with regards to terms with multiple or competing definitions.

Though your point has been made *slow clap*

Icemyn wrote:@Berzerker - I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it.

Even if your Idiomatic assertion regarding "at this stage" has in your opinion a general meaning, by definition It doesn't apply to all cases. Additionally, I don't agree that "at this stage" has the definition you mentioned.

You can disregard that last paragraph entirely because I have no intention of arguing an idiomatic definition.

As for the literal definition I don't believe that destroyed has a RAW interpretation that you are lending it.
I have previously stated why I believe that so there is no reason to rehash it here. As you have already shown destroyed has multiple meanings and anti meanings depending on the source you quote. My opinion is that to go outside of the BRB or codex to infer a definition that is not stated will carry no weight in a RAW discussion.

Emphasis added.

Fair enough; we'll leave "at this stage" aside entirely. It doesn't prevent anything. That also neatly side-steps the "no save or other special rule may rescue them" line.

So then the line "The falling back unit is destroyed" is the only one left. We're going to have to parse this.

"Falling back" and "unit" are simple enough; those are defined in the BRB. But given that we aren't allowed to use dictionaries. . . what does "the" mean? Or "is"? Or, of course, the word we've been talking about this whole time, "destroyed"?

I am, of course, being facetious, but I hope you take my point. If unstated definitions of normal English words "carry no weight in a RAW discussion" then we can't HAVE a RAW discussion, because the BRB and every codex ever published are all absolutely chock-full of words that they never define. We MUST use dictionaries, unless the word in question is specifically defined within the BRB; we MUST infer definitions where none is given. If we don't do that, it's impossible to do anything, including playing the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:

To respond to your edit: I have never asserted an idiomatic definition of destroyed. I have asserted from the beginning that it does not carry cannot be repaired as part of its meaning with regards to RAW.

Very well. Can you provide any rules support for this position? Since, at the very least, preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that in normal English it does, in fact, carry that meaning, you will need some other indication from the BRB to argue this position convincingly.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Icemyn wrote:

To respond to your edit: I have never asserted an idiomatic definition of destroyed. I have asserted from the beginning that it does not carry cannot be repaired as part of its meaning with regards to RAW.

Very well. Can you provide any rules support for this position? Since, at the very least, preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that in normal English it does, in fact, carry that meaning, you will need some other indication from the BRB to argue this position convincingly.

I have already posted links that disagree with your links I could go on and find more or go to the local library and pull every dictionary which will no doubt yield more.
Even if we went by your dictionary definition "irreparable" is a tertiary meaning(at best among your sources) which may have not even been intended by GW. You yourself when initially quoting the dictionary did not seem to know it had the extra meaning.
I do not think it is up to myself to prove something does not have a meaning, I believe it would be up to you to prove that it does without a doubt carry that meaning. I do not believe you have shown this.

Also to your first bit Rigeld2 beat you to it and I responded to him.

Icemyn wrote:I have already posted links that disagree with your link

This is telling.

You did not actually do that.
You posted some links that did not agree.
You posted nothing that actually disagreed.

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I have already posted links that disagree with your link

This is telling.

You did not actually do that.
You posted some links that did not agree.
You posted nothing that actually disagreed.

I think your logic is wrong here.

By the very nature of the two sites defining the same word differently they are not agreeing, thus disagreeing.
I don't understand your complaint in any event, you clearly agree that I posted links which do not agree, which is my point.

As above.

In addition - using a US english dictionary to try to argue against the OED, which is the language the book is written in, is a TERRIBLE argument, as it is so easily dismissed

Icemyn wrote:

I have already posted links that disagree with your links I could go on and find more or go to the local library and pull every dictionary which will no doubt yield more.
Even if we went by your dictionary definition "irreparable" is a tertiary meaning(at best among your sources) which may have not even been intended by GW. You yourself when initially quoting the dictionary did not seem to know it had the extra meaning.
I do not think it is up to myself to prove something does not have a meaning, I believe it would be up to you to prove that it does without a doubt carry that meaning. I do not believe you have shown this.

Also to your first bit Rigeld2 beat you to it and I responded to him.

Since your response appears to have been "your point has been made", I'm still curious as to how you actually deal with the issue. I assume you play the game; if that's so, you cannot actually hold to the position that only definitions found in the BRB and codexes can be used.

As regards 'destroy' and the meaning thereof; a language is, of course, not a uniform thing. Different people will claim that the same word has a slightly different meaning, particularly in different contexts. However, in the context we're discussing (the context of destroying a physical object, in this case a Necron) the implication seems to be quite strong that whatever has been destroyed cannot recover from said destruction. I've provided a significant amount of evidence in favor of that assertion; you've provided evidence that it isn't the only interpretation.

At the end of the day, we simply don't know what GW intended; arguing that GW may not have intended something is certainly true, but irrelevant, as we cannot make a rules decision on that basis. The rules support for my argument is entirely inference; SA uses very strong language, goes out of its way to clarify that only a few, highly specific rules can override it, and indicates clearly ("for them, the battle is over") that a unit which suffers SA is gone, and not coming back. Since an IC is a member of the unit, and we know that the tokens left behind by RP and EL are also associated with the unit, I assert that, taken together, these rules indicate that if a unit is destroyed by a Sweeping Advance, any Independent Character attached to them is also destroyed, even if he died earlier in the Assault phase.

Your interpretation seems to differ from that. Can you provide any rules support for your stance? For instance, is there something that indicates that if a unit and an attached IC have both been destroyed, they are no longer considered to be the same unit?

How has this thread been going this long?!
I reread the rules on EL and RP. It says that when a unit falls back, you remove 'ALL' tokens. EL and RP; gone. If you fail your moral and fall back but are caught in SA, it doesn't matter what anymore cause the tokens were gone when you failed. The only thing you can hope for is the unit is wiped out competely, then the EL can take effect.

Icemyn wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I have already posted links that disagree with your link

This is telling.

You did not actually do that.
You posted some links that did not agree.
You posted nothing that actually disagreed.

I think your logic is wrong here.

By the very nature of the two sites defining the same word differently they are not agreeing, thus disagreeing.
I don't understand your complaint in any event, you clearly agree that I posted links which do not agree, which is my point.

If you had posted something that said destroy is temporary or easily recovered from, that would be the case.

Similar issue:
I say 9 is odd.
You say 9 is 3 squared.

Did you disagree with me?
Did you agree?

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Since your response appears to have been "your point has been made", I'm still curious as to how you actually deal with the issue. I assume you play the game; if that's so, you cannot actually hold to the position that only definitions found in the BRB and codexes can be used.

Ive already stated that with regards to words with singular common meanings those of course do not have to be defined by the BRB, that would be idiotic as you know and have stated. "Destroyed" does not have a common definition and as Nosferatu has mentioned you have only shown American-English definitions. The only Oxford World English site I can find:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/destroy

does not have your definition. OED.com is a pay for access and Im not paying just to be vindicated on this issue, feel free to do so yourself.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
As regards 'destroy' and the meaning thereof; a language is, of course, not a uniform thing. Different people will claim that the same word has a slightly different meaning, particularly in different contexts. However, in the context we're discussing (the context of destroying a physical object, in this case a Necron) the implication seems to be quite strong that whatever has been destroyed cannot recover from said destruction. I've provided a significant amount of evidence in favor of that assertion; you've provided evidence that it isn't the only interpretation.

See above.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
At the end of the day, we simply don't know what GW intended; arguing that GW may not have intended something is certainly true, but irrelevant, as we cannot make a rules decision on that basis. The rules support for my argument is entirely inference; SA uses very strong language, goes out of its way to clarify that only a few, highly specific rules can override it, and indicates clearly ("for them, the battle is over") that a unit which suffers SA is gone, and not coming back. Since an IC is a member of the unit, and we know that the tokens left behind by RP and EL are also associated with the unit, I assert that, taken together, these rules indicate that if a unit is destroyed by a Sweeping Advance, any Independent Character attached to them is also destroyed, even if he died earlier in the Assault phase.

Your parenthesized statement is fluff, so not worth mentioning. RP counters are associated with the unit EL counters are not. Thus when the unit falls back before it is even swept the RP counters are removed. I do not believe that the Character or IC attached be it cryptek/lord/overlord is destroyed. But only due to the timing restriction SA uses which is "at this stage" otherwise I would not waste my time on this argument as the rest of the SA rule makes it pretty clear. If EL happened even in combat resolution I wouldnt argue this stance but EL happens at the end of the phase long after SA's are resolved for each combat.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Your interpretation seems to differ from that. Can you provide any rules support for your stance? For instance, is there something that indicates that if a unit and an attached IC have both been destroyed, they are no longer considered to be the same unit?

The EL rules make it very clear that with regards to character upgrades crypteks/lords that they are always part of the unit and can never leave, thus I will not attempt to state that they become a new unit as that is not true. An overlord however when trying to stand up would only stand up with his unit if it existed if it doesn't he can exist alone as he is an IC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ZombieJoe wrote:How has this thread been going this long?!
I reread the rules on EL and RP. It says that when a unit falls back, you remove 'ALL' tokens. EL and RP; gone. If you fail your moral and fall back but are caught in SA, it doesn't matter what anymore cause the tokens were gone when you failed. The only thing you can hope for is the unit is wiped out competely, then the EL can take effect.

This is not true only the RP tokens are removed when falling back not the EL.
There was a thread on this not long ago.
This is important for shooting say your unit with cryptek gets shot cryptek and some warriors go down,
the unit fails morale, the RP tokens are removed but the cryptek can get back up.

ZombieJoe wrote:How has this thread been going this long?!
I reread the rules on EL and RP. It says that when a unit falls back, you remove 'ALL' tokens. EL and RP; gone. If you fail your moral and fall back but are caught in SA, it doesn't matter what anymore cause the tokens were gone when you failed. The only thing you can hope for is the unit is wiped out competely, then the EL can take effect.

That's not the case. Falling back clears RP tokens. Falling back does not clear EL tokens.

And your last sentence is not spelled out by the rules. That's what the thread as been debating. It would be great if you could read the thread and see the arguments presented before insulting us by saying we missed something obvious.

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I have already posted links that disagree with your link

This is telling.

You did not actually do that.
You posted some links that did not agree.
You posted nothing that actually disagreed.

I think your logic is wrong here.

By the very nature of the two sites defining the same word differently they are not agreeing, thus disagreeing.
I don't understand your complaint in any event, you clearly agree that I posted links which do not agree, which is my point.

If you had posted something that said destroy is temporary or easily recovered from, that would be the case.

Similar issue:
I say 9 is odd.
You say 9 is 3 squared.

Did you disagree with me?
Did you agree?

Your point is made sir, I think we both agree that what I said was on point but for a logical implication fallacy.

Icemyn wrote:

Your parenthesized statement is fluff, so not worth mentioning. RP counters are associated with the unit EL counters are not. Thus when the unit falls back before it is even swept the RP counters are removed. I do not believe that the Character or IC attached be it cryptek/lord/overlord is destroyed. But only due to the timing restriction SA uses which is "at this stage" otherwise I would not waste my time on this argument as the rest of the SA rule makes it pretty clear. If EL happened even in combat resolution I wouldnt argue this stance but EL happens at the end of the phase long after SA's are resolved for each combat.

Mmm. . . that could certainly be argued. If it was some kind of background justification for what happened to the unit ("It can be assumed the unit has been comprehensively ripped apart. . ." etc.) then I wouldn't hesitate to call it fluff, but that sentence is referring to an in-game effect. What makes it fluff? "For them, the battle is over" certainly isn't defined in game terms, but then neither is "the unit is destroyed". What makes the two any different?

Icemyn wrote:

The EL rules make it very clear that with regards to character upgrades crypteks/lords that they are always part of the unit and can never leave, thus I will not attempt to state that they become a new unit as that is not true. An overlord however when trying to stand up would only stand up with his unit if it existed if it doesn't he can exist alone as he is an IC.

Of course, Upgrade Characters aren't even under discussion.

I know that ICs CAN exist independently of the unit; that isn't the issue. The issue is that they can only do that if the leave the unit first, and there's a specified process by which they leave the unit (moving out of coherency in the Movement phase). In this case, the theoretical IC we're discussing hasn't done that, which means, as far as I can tell, that he's still part of the unit. And if he's still part of the unit, bringing him back to life is still "un-destroying" the unit.

Icemyn wrote:[Ive already stated that with regards to words with singular common meanings those of course do not have to be defined by the BRB, that would be idiotic as you know and have stated. "Destroyed" does not have a common definition and as Nosferatu has mentioned you have only shown American-English definitions. The only Oxford World English site I can find:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/destroy

does not have your definition. OED.com is a pay for access and Im not paying just to be vindicated on this issue, feel free to do so yourself.

So unless every dictionary you can find has the exact same definition, the definition isn't common?
The very link you posted above that you assert "does not have your definition" says "end the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it". If the existence is ended, you can't repair it.

Your parenthesized statement is fluff, so not worth mentioning. RP counters are associated with the unit EL counters are not.

Funny - don't you have to stand back up with the unit?

The EL rules make it very clear that with regards to character upgrades crypteks/lords that they are always part of the unit and can never leave, thus I will not attempt to state that they become a new unit as that is not true. An overlord however when trying to stand up would only stand up with his unit if it existed if it doesn't he can exist alone as he is an IC.

But he's part of the unit for all intents and purposes - even at the point the unit is swept ("Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards).")
Which means he suffers all effects of the unit until he separates from them.

rigeld2 wrote:

ZombieJoe wrote:How has this thread been going this long?!
I reread the rules on EL and RP. It says that when a unit falls back, you remove 'ALL' tokens. EL and RP; gone. If you fail your moral and fall back but are caught in SA, it doesn't matter what anymore cause the tokens were gone when you failed. The only thing you can hope for is the unit is wiped out competely, then the EL can take effect.

That's not the case. Falling back clears RP tokens. Falling back does not clear EL tokens.

And your last sentence is not spelled out by the rules. That's what the thread as been debating. It would be great if you could read the thread and see the arguments presented before insulting us by saying we missed something obvious.

Wooo, chill there dude. Your nerd rage is showing. I'm not insulting you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, isn't EL a subset rule of RP. And it says remove all token "ALL" tokens when the unit fails moral. That is why its says next to every model with the EL rule, Reanimation Protocal, Everliving.

Your parenthesized statement is fluff, so not worth mentioning. RP counters are associated with the unit EL counters are not.

Funny - don't you have to stand back up with the unit?

No you absolutely do but if you read the codex, which at this point Im curious if you and Berzerker have, the EL counters are placed where the model fell and are not moved with the unit. Its only after the roll is successful that they rejoin the unit.

@rigeld2 - Your first point on removing from existence = irreparable is an implication not a fact.

I am not going to argue the IC and attachment rules for this issue as they are not relevant if the IC is attached treat him like a cryptek/lord. My stance is with him getting up so long as the EL counter was placed pre SA.

I might be wrong but. Faq>codex>brb? Ip so facto even if by do chance it "un-destroys" isn't that fine and dandy?

ZombieJoe wrote:Wooo, chill there dude. Your nerd rage is showing. I'm not insulting you.

Things like "How has this thread been going this long?!" imply that you think you know something that hasn't been presented, and that obviously anyone who doesn't know this little gem is deficient in some manner.
If it wasn't intended as an insult, then nevermind.

But, isn't EL a subset rule of RP. And it says remove all token "ALL" tokens when the unit fails moral. That is why its says next to every model with the EL rule, Reanimation Protocal, Everliving.

It's like this is your first post in YMDC...

All tokens means all wound tokens, a pinned/GTG marker, whatever else I represent a token with...

Or, it means - by context of the rule - all RP tokens.

If EL isn't a subset of RP why would EL say something to the effect of "follow the rules for RP except for..."?

There really was a whole thread about this. You should look for it.

Icemyn wrote:

Your parenthesized statement is fluff, so not worth mentioning. RP counters are associated with the unit EL counters are not.

Funny - don't you have to stand back up with the unit?

No you absolutely do but if you read the codex, which at this point Im curious if you and Berzerker have, the EL counters are placed where the model fell and are not moved with the unit. Its only after the roll is successful that they rejoin the unit.

Yes, I have. And I'm aware that EL tokens are not moved, but the very fact that the model rejoins the unit if the roll is passed does strongly suggest that the model (not the token) is still, at this point, considered a member of the unit despite being dead.

That being so, then Sweeping Advance would still apply to it even though it was destroyed earlier; it's still a member of the unit.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I might be wrong but. Faq>codex>brb? Ip so facto even if by do chance it "un-destroys" isn't that fine and dandy?

Specific > General. And there's nothing that says EL can get back up from SA.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:I might be wrong but. Faq>codex>brb? Ip so facto even if by do chance it "un-destroys" isn't that fine and dandy?

Nope. Specific > general: that's the one and only principle of hierarchy at work here. Sweeping Advance has an EXTREMELY specific limitation on what can counteract it; just "any rule in a Codex" won't do.