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.

Leth wrote:In the FAQ it says that if an entire unit is wiped out that the ever living models get a roll to revive

The definition of wiped out(I am assuming in context) is: To destroy or be destroyed completely

under sweeping advance it says "The destroyed units are removed as casualties"

So according to the FAQ they do get their EL roll. Or am I missing something?

In the rule itself they do not have any special mention of being immune to SA, however the FAQ clarified that they do get an immunity.

What the 'cron codex says is that RP and/or EL tokens are placed when the unit is RFPaaC. What the FAQ you cited does is equate 'wiped out' to RFPaaC. SA does indeed say that the affected unit is destroyed and RFPaaC, thus triggering the placement of the EL/RP tokens. Any RP tokens for the affected unit that were on the battlefield were removed when the unit failed its Morale Check.

What rigeld2 and like-minded folks are saying is that you will not be able to then roll for the EL tokens at the end of the phase because that would invalidate the SA. Specifically the bit about, "unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over."

The problem with this is that they are failing to treat SA as a action that has a clearly defined start and finish. They want to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase rather than for this step or point in time of the Assault phase. They still haven't resolved what to do with the legally placed tokens that remain on the battlefield. There is no rule in SA that prevents them from being placed, nor is there any other rule that says you can pick them up after the unit has been swept. I suspect that they would end up creating a new rule mechanic to fit in with their interpretation of how SA and EL work.

-Yad

Yad wrote:The problem with this is that they are failing to treat SA as a action that has a clearly defined start and finish. They want to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase rather than for this step or point in time of the Assault phase. They still haven't resolved what to do with the legally placed tokens that remain on the battlefield. There is no rule in SA that prevents them from being placed, nor is there any other rule that says you can pick them up after the unit has been swept. I suspect that they would end up creating a new rule mechanic to fit in with their interpretation of how SA and EL work.

You can roll for them. You just can't place the models without breaking SA.

You're still assuming an action cannot have a lasting effect. Well, you're implying that anyway - there are hundreds of actions in the BRB that have lasting effects past the clear start and finish. SA is not inventing it.

edit: Also - I'm not wanting "to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase" - it doesn't end. There's no defined stop point for the "at this stage" clause - unless another rule otherwise specifies. Have you found one yet?

When I remove a model as a casualty I don't get to replace him on my next turn. He is gone from that point on.

If I use my combi-melta first turn it is used and I cannot use it again next turn. From that point on it is used.

If I shoot a Hunter Killer missile first turn I don't get to shoot it again next turn, it is gone.

These are just three examples of things that have effects that last the entire rest if the game. At this stage my combi is spent, and will never get to shoot as a melta gun for the rest of the game. Stop pretending this concept of effects that last from this point on to the end of the game is such a foreign concept to the rules.

Yad wrote:The problem with this is that they are failing to treat SA as a action that has a clearly defined start and finish.

No, not at all. You are however deciding it has no lasting effects, despite the clearly demonstrable fact that this occurs int he game all the time. Appparently SA is special in that it doesnt have a lasting effect

Yad wrote: They want to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase rather than for this step or point in time of the Assault phase.

No, we are not trying to "extend" the phrasing, we are using the phrasing exactly as written. YOU are trying to change the phrase "at this stage" to only mean "stage". Your only hope is that we accept that as valid (we do not) and that "for them, the battle is over" can be ignored as "fluff", as opposed to a clear directive which you are attmpting to ignore and have yet to cite a single rule allowing you to do so.

Yad wrote: They still haven't resolved what to do with the legally placed tokens that remain on the battlefield. There is no rule in SA that prevents them from being placed, nor is there any other rule that says you can pick them up after the unit has been swept. I suspect that they would end up creating a new rule mechanic to fit in with their interpretation of how SA and EL work.

-Yad

You roll for the token, removing the token. You cannot place the model if you succeed without breaking the SA rule, so you dont get to place the model. Done. No entirely new mechanic, and follows all the rules.. Im amazed it was so difficult to spot.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:The problem with this is that they are failing to treat SA as a action that has a clearly defined start and finish. They want to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase rather than for this step or point in time of the Assault phase. They still haven't resolved what to do with the legally placed tokens that remain on the battlefield. There is no rule in SA that prevents them from being placed, nor is there any other rule that says you can pick them up after the unit has been swept. I suspect that they would end up creating a new rule mechanic to fit in with their interpretation of how SA and EL work.

You can roll for them. You just can't place the models without breaking SA.

You realize that both you and Nos have said that you only follow part of one rule because you think it will break another rule. In other words, don't follow (i.e., break) the EL rule so you don't break the SA rule. Hmm, me no agree I'd be more inclined to agree with you if you couldn't place and roll for the EL tokens at all. It seems to me that the insistence on extending the SA affect for the entirety of the Assault phase breaks the game. My reading of the rules does not.

rigeld2 wrote:You're still assuming an action cannot have a lasting effect. Well, you're implying that anyway - there are hundreds of actions in the BRB that have lasting effects past the clear start and finish. SA is not inventing it.

Not quite. Unless I'm mistaking your post, you are trying to twist my stance on SA and EL and say that that is my viewpoint across the game. Clearly there are certain rules that maintain state. I am very much aware of that. E.g., a unit that fires RF weapons may not assault, one-shot weapons, etc.

rigeld2 wrote:edit: Also - I'm not wanting "to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase" - it doesn't end. There's no defined stop point for the "at this stage" clause - unless another rule otherwise specifies. Have you found one yet?

Sure there is, and we've already gone over why

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:When I remove a model as a casualty I don't get to replace him on my next turn. He is gone from that point on.

Yep, but if you're a necron and you were allowed to place a RP/EL token you then have a chance to bring it back into play

If I use my combi-melta first turn it is used and I cannot use it again next turn. From that point on it is used.

If I shoot a Hunter Killer missile first turn I don't get to shoot it again next turn, it is gone.

These are just three examples of things that have effects that last the entire rest if the game. At this stage my combi is spent, and will never get to shoot as a melta gun for the rest of the game.

Yad wrote:You realize that both you and Nos have said that you only follow part of one rule because you think it will break another rule. In other words, don't follow (i.e., break) the EL rule so you don't break the SA rule. Hmm, me no agree I'd be more inclined to agree with you if you couldn't place and roll for the EL tokens at all. It seems to me that the insistence on extending the SA affect for the entirety of the Assault phase breaks the game. My reading of the rules does not.

How does the game break? And please stop placing an arbitrary limit of "entirety of the Assault phase" on what I've said. I haven't said that.
Yes, I'm saying that one rule doesn't function so that another rule is not broken.
Just like not being able to charge if you fire a Rapid Fire weapon, or not being able to Flat Out if you just disembarked and they shoot.

Not quite. Unless I'm mistaking your post, you are trying to twist my stance on SA and EL and say that that is my viewpoint across the game. Clearly there are certain rules that maintain state. I am very much aware of that. E.g., a unit that fires RF weapons may not assault, one-shot weapons, etc.

So why is it a stretch to say that this rule also maintains state? It's not unique and more importantly that's what the phrase means.

rigeld2 wrote:edit: Also - I'm not wanting "to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase" - it doesn't end. There's no defined stop point for the "at this stage" clause - unless another rule otherwise specifies. Have you found one yet?

Sure there is, and we've already gone over why

No, we've gone over you picking one word out of a phrase and defining it as a single point in time.
That's not how the phrase (context) is used.

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:edit: Also - I'm not wanting "to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase" - it doesn't end. There's no defined stop point for the "at this stage" clause - unless another rule otherwise specifies. Have you found one yet?

Sure there is, and we've already gone over why

-Yad

We have gone over you removing the word "stage" from the phrase "at this stage", and we've gone over you ignoring the directive "for them the battle is over" - well, actually we just keep on pointing out that you keep on igniring it, hoping it will go away - but you've yet to come up wioth a rule allowing you to redefine the phrase entire, now have you?

If you HAVE got a rule allowing you to redefine the meaning of the phrase "at this stage"< please present it for us all to see!

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:You realize that both you and Nos have said that you only follow part of one rule because you think it will break another rule. In other words, don't follow (i.e., break) the EL rule so you don't break the SA rule. Hmm, me no agree I'd be more inclined to agree with you if you couldn't place and roll for the EL tokens at all. It seems to me that the insistence on extending the SA affect for the entirety of the Assault phase breaks the game. My reading of the rules does not.

How does the game break? And please stop placing an arbitrary limit of "entirety of the Assault phase" on what I've said. I haven't said that.

You are holding that once a SA have been successfully rolled there is no way to bring the affected unit back 'for the entirety of the Assault phase, aren't you? The understanding here, and I really didn't think I needed to say it, is that this affect is only for the remainder of the Assault phase that the SA happened in.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, I'm saying that one rule doesn't function so that another rule is not broken.
Just like not being able to charge if you fire a Rapid Fire weapon, or not being able to Flat Out if you just disembarked and they shoot.

Not even close to the same thing. Each of those examples you cite provide explicit rules as to why you can't assault after firing RF weapons, or why you can't Flat Out after Disembarking. SA does no such thing. It says that you cannot stop (without an explicit rule that allows you to do so) a successfully rolled SA from destroying the affected unit. SA doesn't care about what happens after it's resolved.

In summary:

You are executing SA and as a consequence you must execute EL, but because you think that EL breaks SA so you stop executing it part way through, thus ignoring the remainder of the requirements that the second rule places upon you. You do this because you think it invalidates SA which has already been successfully executed. The reason you think it invalidates SA is that SA introduces/creates a condition for the entirety of that Assault phase, which prevents the successful completion of EL

My simple answer to all this is that SA only restricts the direct responses that can be made to a successful SA roll. Unless otherwise specified you get no: Invulnerable save, FNP, Armour save, Cover save, etc.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Not quite. Unless I'm mistaking your post, you are trying to twist my stance on SA and EL and say that that is my viewpoint across the game. Clearly there are certain rules that maintain state. I am very much aware of that. E.g., a unit that fires RF weapons may not assault, one-shot weapons, etc.

So why is it a stretch to say that this rule also maintains state? It's not unique and more importantly that's what the phrase means.

Because the context of the rule as well as the language used does not, to me, suggest there is a state change.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:edit: Also - I'm not wanting "to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase" - it doesn't end. There's no defined stop point for the "at this stage" clause - unless another rule otherwise specifies. Have you found one yet?

Sure there is, and we've already gone over why

No, we've gone over you picking one word out of a phrase and defining it as a single point in time.
That's not how the phrase (context) is used.

That absolutely is how that phrase can be used. I'm frankly astonished that you, or anyone, could think otherwise. You're actually suggesting that the word stage cannot mean a single point, (or step) in time (or a process). That's...odd to say the least.

-Yad

The single word "stage" is not the point, the PHRASE "at this stage", when read in context INCLUDING "for them the battle is over" tells you it is NOT point in time

Clinging to this interpretation, which in context has NO support whatsoever, is a very, very thin argument

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:edit: Also - I'm not wanting "to extend the 'at this stage' wording to mean for the remainder of Assault phase" - it doesn't end. There's no defined stop point for the "at this stage" clause - unless another rule otherwise specifies. Have you found one yet?

Sure there is, and we've already gone over why

-Yad

We have gone over you removing the word "stage" from the phrase "at this stage", and we've gone over you ignoring the directive "for them the battle is over" - well, actually we just keep on pointing out that you keep on igniring it, hoping it will go away - but you've yet to come up wioth a rule allowing you to redefine the phrase entire, now have you?

If you HAVE got a rule allowing you to redefine the meaning of the phrase "at this stage"< please present it for us all to see!

Yad wrote:You are holding that once a SA have been successfully rolled there is no way to bring the affected unit back 'for the entirety of the Assault phase, aren't you? The understanding here, and I really didn't think I needed to say it, is that this affect is only for the remainder of the Assault phase that the SA happened in.

Well, no. In this specific case it only matters for the one Assault phase, but there could be a rule in the future where it matters.

Yad wrote:Not even close to the same thing. Each of those examples you cite provide explicit rules as to why you can't assault after firing RF weapons, or why you can't Flat Out after Disembarking. SA does no such thing. It says that you cannot stop (without an explicit rule that allows you to do so) a successfully rolled SA from destroying the affected unit. SA doesn't care about what happens after it's resolved.

That's not what it says. If your rulebook says that then I understand the disagreement. You're using point in time words when the SA rule doesn't.

Yad wrote:You are executing SA and as a consequence you must execute EL, but because you think that EL breaks SA so you stop executing it part way through, thus ignoring the remainder of the requirements that the second rule places upon you. You do this because you think it invalidates SA which has already been successfully executed. The reason you think it invalidates SA is that SA introduces/creates a condition for the entirety of that Assault phase, which prevents the successful completion of EL

My simple answer to all this is that SA only restricts the direct responses that can be made to a successful SA roll. Unless otherwise specified you get no: Invulnerable save, FNP, Armour save, Cover save, etc.

You haven't yet been able to support that.

Yad wrote:Because the context of the rule as well as the language used does not, to me, suggest there is a state change.

"at this stage"? Are you serious?

Yad wrote:That absolutely is how that phrase can be used. I'm frankly astonished that you, or anyone, could think otherwise. You're actually suggesting that the word stage cannot mean a single point, (or step) in time (or a process). That's...odd to say the least.

Yes, absolutely, 100% correct that the word "stage" by itself can mean a single point in time and never reference anything beyond that.
The word "stage" is not used by itself, it's used in a common English phrase and contextually does not reference only a single point in time.

The word "stage" is not used by itself, it's used in a common English phrase and contextually does not reference only a single point in time.

By definition, it does. "at the current point in some event or situation."

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:You are holding that once a SA have been successfully rolled there is no way to bring the affected unit back 'for the entirety of the Assault phase, aren't you? The understanding here, and I really didn't think I needed to say it, is that this affect is only for the remainder of the Assault phase that the SA happened in.

Well, no. In this specific case it only matters for the one Assault phase, but there could be a rule in the future where it matters.

Yad wrote:Not even close to the same thing. Each of those examples you cite provide explicit rules as to why you can't assault after firing RF weapons, or why you can't Flat Out after Disembarking. SA does no such thing. It says that you cannot stop (without an explicit rule that allows you to do so) a successfully rolled SA from destroying the affected unit. SA doesn't care about what happens after it's resolved.

That's not what it says. If your rulebook says that then I understand the disagreement. You're using point in time words when the SA rule doesn't.

Yad wrote:You are executing SA and as a consequence you must execute EL, but because you think that EL breaks SA so you stop executing it part way through, thus ignoring the remainder of the requirements that the second rule places upon you. You do this because you think it invalidates SA which has already been successfully executed. The reason you think it invalidates SA is that SA introduces/creates a condition for the entirety of that Assault phase, which prevents the successful completion of EL

My simple answer to all this is that SA only restricts the direct responses that can be made to a successful SA roll. Unless otherwise specified you get no: Invulnerable save, FNP, Armour save, Cover save, etc.

You haven't yet been able to support that.

Yad wrote:Because the context of the rule as well as the language used does not, to me, suggest there is a state change.

"at this stage"? Are you serious?

Yep, because you're completely wrong in suggesting there is a state change. At this stage is referring to the action of the SA and responses that the affected unit is allowed when the SA is executed.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:That absolutely is how that phrase can be used. I'm frankly astonished that you, or anyone, could think otherwise. You're actually suggesting that the word stage cannot mean a single point, (or step) in time (or a process). That's...odd to say the least.

Yes, absolutely, 100% correct that the word "stage" by itself can mean a single point in time and never reference anything beyond that.
The word "stage" is not used by itself, it's used in a common English phrase and contextually does not reference only a single point in time.

so you accept that the word stage by itself can mean that, but 'at this stage' can't? That's laughable at best. So in your mind, when someone says, 'at this step' or 'at this point', it is different from 'at this stage'? I would only agree with that if the context of the statement likened 'stage' to 'phase'. SA doesn't do so.

-Yad

Saving the model "at this stage" in this case would mean the model lives and doesn't die - like in ATSKNF.

If EL saved or rescued the model, then it would still be alive and stay in combat like ATSKNF. If the EL rule "specified" like some think is required then the EL model would stay alive and in combat like ATSKNF. Ever-living doesn't work this way.

Bringing the model back with EL into play is not saving or rescuing it during the Sweeping Advance stage of combat. The model is destroyed and removed as a casualty. "At this stage" is a point in time and does not include at the end of phase.

Yad wrote:Yep, because you're completely wrong in suggesting there is a state change. At this stage is referring to the action of the SA and responses that the affected unit is allowed when the SA is executed.

Even though "at this stage" as a phrase refers to a state change?
"We don't need your help at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
...

It's not a single point in time.

so you accept that the word stage by itself can mean that, but 'at this stage' can't? That's laughable at best. So in your mind, when someone says, 'at this step' or 'at this point', it is different from 'at this stage'? I would only agree with that if the context of the statement likened 'stage' to 'phase'. SA doesn't do so.

Yes, I accept that a phrase can have a meaning different from the individual words.
"I'm going to hit the head."
Hit, in this sentence, is not using the normal definition. Again, not something unique. I'm surprised you find it so hard to believe.
And still, you're restricting it to phase - I've done no such thing. In fact it does matter - St. C could be swept if that psyker power dropped Fearless from her and she'd be unable to get back up.
The different "stages" are "unit is alive" and "unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued". To transition from one to another requires something to specify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Saving the model "at this stage" in this case would mean the model lives and doesn't die - like in ATSKNF.

I don't care about the model. And it's not about saving either.

If EL saved or rescued the model, then it would still be alive and stay in combat like ATSKNF. If the EL rule "specified" like some think is required then the EL model would stay alive and in combat like ATSKNF. Ever-living doesn't work this way.

If the EL rule specified it would say what would happen when swept. You're making an assumption unsupported by the rules.

Bringing the model back with EL into play is not saving or rescuing it during the Sweeping Advance stage of combat. The model is destroyed and removed as a casualty. "At this stage" is a point in time and does not include at the end of phase.

Bringing the model back is absolutely rescuing the unit.
It's not a point in time - the definition posted earlier in this thread doesn't support that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Yep, because you're completely wrong in suggesting there is a state change. At this stage is referring to the action of the SA and responses that the affected unit is allowed when the SA is executed.

Even though "at this stage" as a phrase refers to a state change?
"We don't need your help at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
...

It's not a single point in time.

Yet none of that actually applies to the SA rule. Your analogy, while crystal clear, lacks similarity.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote: so you accept that the word stage by itself can mean that, but 'at this stage' can't? That's laughable at best. So in your mind, when someone says, 'at this step' or 'at this point', it is different from 'at this stage'? I would only agree with that if the context of the statement likened 'stage' to 'phase'. SA doesn't do so.

Yes, I accept that a phrase can have a meaning different from the individual words.
"I'm going to hit the head."
Hit, in this sentence, is not using the normal definition. Again, not something unique. I'm surprised you find it so hard to believe.

Now your being disingenuous about what I've said. I've allowed that 'at this stage' can refer to a phase (not in the 40k sense of the word). It's your refusal to acknowledge that 'at this stage' can also mean at this point, at this step, etc., that is troublesome. Even in your example, 'hit the head', depending on the context of the conversation it could also mean that someone is going to hit the head of a nail, or a pinata for example. In which case hit means exactly what we expect it to mean. Context is key. I believe that your position doesn't have the contextual support in the SA rule.

rigeld2 wrote:And still, you're restricting it to phase - I've done no such thing. In fact it does matter - St. C could be swept if that psyker power dropped Fearless from her and she'd be unable to get back up.
The different "stages" are "unit is alive" and "unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued". To transition from one to another requires something to specify.

As SA happens in the sub-phase of the Assault phase, and you would assert that EL cannot, at the end of that Assault phase, be used, then it follows that you mean the restrictions introduced by SA extend for the entirety of that Assault phase. Perhaps we're speaking past each other here, but I don't understand what your hangup is.

rigeld2 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Saving the model "at this stage" in this case would mean the model lives and doesn't die - like in ATSKNF.

I don't care about the model. And it's not about saving either.

If EL saved or rescued the model, then it would still be alive and stay in combat like ATSKNF. If the EL rule "specified" like some think is required then the EL model would stay alive and in combat like ATSKNF. Ever-living doesn't work this way.

If the EL rule specified it would say what would happen when swept. You're making an assumption unsupported by the rules.

Bringing the model back with EL into play is not saving or rescuing it during the Sweeping Advance stage of combat. The model is destroyed and removed as a casualty. "At this stage" is a point in time and does not include at the end of phase.

Bringing the model back is absolutely rescuing the unit.
It's not a point in time - the definition posted earlier in this thread doesn't support that.

The definition is correct, as is mine. The context under which SA operates does not support your application.

-Yad

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:Yep, because you're completely wrong in suggesting there is a state change. At this stage is referring to the action of the SA and responses that the affected unit is allowed when the SA is executed.

Even though "at this stage" as a phrase refers to a state change?
"We don't need your help at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
"How about now?"
"Not at this stage."
...

It's not a single point in time.

At this stage i don't need your help ,means now when your asking not for the next 3 hours, simple English , At this stage in the event you cant save the unit ,once you move onto consolidation separate event you cant say SA is still happening .
by your grasp of English this statement would be true "at this stage in the heptathlon we are running the 110m hurdles ,now at this stage we are doing the high jump but the 110m hurdles is still ongoing, even though we have already run it and that stage of the heptathlon is concluded" .

so you accept that the word stage by itself can mean that, but 'at this stage' can't? That's laughable at best. So in your mind, when someone says, 'at this step' or 'at this point', it is different from 'at this stage'? I would only agree with that if the context of the statement likened 'stage' to 'phase'. SA doesn't do so.

rigeld2 wrote:Yes, I accept that a phrase can have a meaning different from the individual words.
"I'm going to hit the head."
Hit, in this sentence, is not using the normal definition. Again, not something unique. I'm surprised you find it so hard to believe.
And still, you're restricting it to phase - I've done no such thing. In fact it does matter - St. C could be swept if that psyker power dropped Fearless from her and she'd be unable to get back up.
The different "stages" are "unit is alive" and "unit is destroyed and cannot be rescued". To transition from one to another requires something to specify.

SA has ended or you cant move on to consolidation trying to say it has a lasting effect is true but the way you are saying it is wrong ,every action ,event in the game has a lasting effect, but as to the definition of that effect you cant 100% be sure of ,SA kills a whole unit that could effect the game in many ways it could mean you win the game it could mean i make a tactical change and win the game the effect is not set in stone.

SA is an event which has a conclusion a conclusion which can effect the game in different ways .

Your take on effect is thinking the action of removing models is an effect when its not ,what happens after the models have been removed would be the effect caused by SA .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Saving the model "at this stage" in this case would mean the model lives and doesn't die - like in ATSKNF.

rigeld2 wrote:I don't care about the model. And it's not about saving either.

yes it is to save the unit/ model from SA we would use a rule to stop SA taking place and we are not

If EL saved or rescued the model, then it would still be alive and stay in combat like ATSKNF. If the EL rule "specified" like some think is required then the EL model would stay alive and in combat like ATSKNF. Ever-living doesn't work this way.

rigeld2 wrote:If the EL rule specified it would say what would happen when swept. You're making an assumption unsupported by the rules.

For EL to effect SA in anyway you have to move backwards in steps and not forward which you cant SA took place nothing stopped it ,EL cant affect the past so why would it mention an event that took place several steps ,stages before it ?

Bringing the model back with EL into play is not saving or rescuing it during the Sweeping Advance stage of combat. The model is destroyed and removed as a casualty. "At this stage" is a point in time and does not include at the end of phase.

rigeld2 wrote:Bringing the model back is absolutely rescuing the unit.
It's not a point in time - the definition posted earlier in this thread doesn't support that.

Even we we agree we are rescuing the unit we are doing so after SA destroyed them and after the action of SA which EL cant stop has taken place .

your whole argument is that SA is on going and at this stage means till the end of the assault phase which is does not and even if it did the EL rolls takes place at the end of the assault phase so they would both conflict as one takes place at the end and the other (by you magical wand)lasts till the end of the assault phase so there we would use codex trumps BRB

The only problem though noferatu1001 is that the model/unit is dead. It remains that way until after the roll for Ever Living. This is what Yad was stating which complies with the rules for Sweeping Advances. Either Sweeping Advance's rule continues to the end of the phase for your definition in which case the model is still dead until the roll is passed and gets back up and comes into conflict with the rules from the BRB to the codex; Or that Sweeping Advances rule ends at the end of that combat in which case, the model will check its Ever Living roll as normal per the codex.

Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

The sentence directly before the sentence your referring to is the trigger for Ever Living. That sentence clearly ends before the 'no special rule or save may rescue them now' sentence. Had the sentence you are referencing came before the trigger condition for Ever Living, you would be correct and no special rule outside of ATSKNF would work.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

The token is not a special rule ,the token does not stop SA from taking place ,the token does not save the unit !!!!!!.The token is a means of keeping track of models that are eligible to attempt to reanimate(,better than the old way of putting models on there side which would damage a persons model after they had spent time building and painting it ) at the end of a phase
The special rule does not come in to effect until the end of the phase ,it is not rolled for until the end of the phase, it can not affect something that has happened in the past ,the past cannot be affected by the present


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xzerios wrote:The sentence directly before the sentence your referring to is the trigger for Ever Living. That sentence clearly ends before the 'no special rule or save may rescue them now' sentence. Had the sentence you are referencing came before the trigger condition for Ever Living, you would be correct and no special rule outside of ATSKNF would work.

Sorry it may be me but arguing about full stops only helps the no EL side, the token is not a special rule

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

I'm certainly not agreeing that EL saves the unit from a successful SA roll. Nothing, aside form ATSKNF, can do that. As to your post back on page 8, I'm seeing and kind of revelation there. Simply follow the rules. One player rolls for SA and succeeds. The swept unit is RFPaaC. This in turn requires the 'cron player to place 1 or more EL tokens. SA is complete. Opponent consolidates. 'Cron player is then required to roll for EL and place (given the restrictions in the EL rule) the models that are returned to play.

If you're still stuck on the argument that I and like-minded folks have been making between pages 8 and 10 then I'd suggest you try again. Your points have been well discussed.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If you HAVE got a rule allowing you to redefine the meaning of the phrase "at this stage"< please present it for us all to see!

Straw man is full of straw The phrase 'at this stage' can mean, at this step, point, or period in a process. If you don't accept that then there's not much hope for you understanding where I'm coming from. You must then understand the context of the rule to determine if this is a viable understanding of the phrase. I think it is. I see SA as an action taken place in the sub-phase of the Assault phase. It only does two things:

Not a straw man. The rule,in context, does not allow you to "at this stage" as a point in time. So, for you to say it MUST be a point in time requires you to provide actual textual support

Given you cannot, your argument is voided.

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The single word "stage" is not the point, the PHRASE "at this stage", when read in context INCLUDING "for them the battle is over" tells you it is NOT point in time

Clinging to this interpretation, which in context has NO support whatsoever, is a very, very thin argument

The phrase, 'for them the battle is over' is fluff. It's a descriptive piece of language that reinforces the destruction and removal of the unit that is swept. It's not a rule. Everything before that semicolon is the actual rule.

-Yad

You have determined this HOW? It is a directive - for them (the unit SA'd) the battle is over

So you are STILL ignoring rules! Oh wait, theyre not rules because you have decided so.

Yad wrote:
@nosferatu1001:

And even if I was to accept that the phrase, 'for them the battle is over' is an actual rule (which it's not and I'm not ), it still wouldn't impact EL. You could append that language to every rule that tells you to remove a model as a casualty or be wiped out and it would:

1) still make the appended to rule valid
2.) not matter at all as far as EL is concerned.

-Yad

It would make a difference because the unit has a specific disallowance from returning to battle. Guess what they cant do if they roll for EL? Return to play

I notice when I pointed out the full rules support for the entire process you just ignored it....
#
You can keep arguing in circles, however given you are ignoring the written, contextual rules to do so you have absolutely zero valid argument to do so. You are now simply arguing HYWPI, nothing more

Upon re-reading it, I dont understand where the assumption that a rule must mention sweeping advance is coming from. On my reading sweeping advance is the name of a rule. The effect is that they are destroyed and the thing the unit must have protection from is the destroyed aspect, not necessarily the rule sweeping advance.

@leth The "specific rule" and "at this stage" part referes IMHO to preventing a SA not to anything that happens after the SA step has occured.

Others disagree and some decided that english isn't english anymore.

Weird. O well I can see where they are coming from, however it seems like to make it work you have to ignore the FAQ as well as place more importance on a few words(that read like fluff) and ignoring the rest.

Still don't understand the general vrs specific argument, is something says that they get it after being destroyed and SA says they are destroyed I fail to see how that does not qualify.

Yad wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

I'm certainly not agreeing that EL saves the unit from a successful SA roll. Nothing, aside form ATSKNF, can do that. As to your post back on page 8, I'm seeing and kind of revelation there. Simply follow the rules. One player rolls for SA and succeeds. The swept unit is RFPaaC. This in turn requires the 'cron player to place 1 or more EL tokens. SA is complete. Opponent consolidates. 'Cron player is then required to roll for EL and place (given the restrictions in the EL rule) the models that are returned to play.

If you're still stuck on the argument that I and like-minded folks have been making between pages 8 and 10 then I'd suggest you try again. Your points have been well discussed.

-Yad

Yad are you saying that you are allowed to place the EL token during SA? Yes or no, with a reason please, so I can fully understand what rules you are following.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Yad wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

I'm certainly not agreeing that EL saves the unit from a successful SA roll. Nothing, aside form ATSKNF, can do that. As to your post back on page 8, I'm seeing and kind of revelation there. Simply follow the rules. One player rolls for SA and succeeds. The swept unit is RFPaaC. This in turn requires the 'cron player to place 1 or more EL tokens. SA is complete. Opponent consolidates. 'Cron player is then required to roll for EL and place (given the restrictions in the EL rule) the models that are returned to play.

If you're still stuck on the argument that I and like-minded folks have been making between pages 8 and 10 then I'd suggest you try again. Your points have been well discussed.

-Yad

Yad are you saying that you are allowed to place the EL token during SA? Yes or no, with a reason please, so I can fully understand what rules you are following.

Your argument re the token is as relevant as saying i can t place a flower on the board after a sweeping advance

The token is not a SPECIAL RULE

The token does not stop SA

The token is placed after you have performed a successful SA it in no way Stops SA from taking place !!!!

The token is placed after a model/unit is RFPAAC which cant happen if SA has not already happened .I.E not during an SA ,again you believe SA is ongoing show me as you all like to say anything to prove this while the pro side has shown RAW my means of after a successful SA you consolidate which is the next step or sub phase of the assault phase ,if SA had been stopped or not finished ,/concluded you would not by allowed by RAW to move on and consolidate

I have re posted this same thing because you have chosen to ignore it, and have yet to show me any rule or cite anything that states the Token is anything other than a marker to show at the end of the phase which Necrons are eligible to attempt to reanimate .

I'm having a hard time following the arguement (in its current form) against EL tokens being placed. Is it still the "no special rule may save" thing?
You are still told to place a token when the model is removed as a casualty. SA still removes units as a casualty. Why is this so hard to understand?
Taking the fanatic stance that the special rule must specifically site SA is not a valid way to read the rules. It say "Unless otherwise specified." That is exactly what EL does. It specifies to place an EL token and roll at the end of the phase. Nothing in SA says to not place tokens or to not roll for the token's effect.

Fafnir, the argument is as follows:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can be used to rescue the unit at this stage, for them the battle is over.

(May not be exact wording away from book at the moment)

By allowing EL (which does not mention SA) you are rescuing the unit and for them (the unit) the battle is no longer over.

In 4th edition there was no problem because GW used WBB (which works very similarly to EL, albeit rolled for later in the game), as an example of a special rule that "saves" the unit. Additionally, with the exception of the example, and the inclusion of removing the unit as casualties, the wording for SA is exactly the same as 4th ed, and 5th ed.