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.

-Jumps on the bandwaggon-
You are Incorrect! Deal with it and move along!

And again Gwar, you can't stretch damage resolution for the same model across turns. Can you show me in the rulebook where you can?

If you take down 11 necron warriors, you took down 11. Not 9 later, 11 now. Necrons have their unique rules, which let them attempt to reincarnate or recreate a dead unit through WBB, but it doesn't reduce damage....they took all their damage, and obviously died; this is why we're having this debate in the first place.

And don_mondo, as explained earlier....you can quote previous arguments, but when the previous argument is based on flawed logic and interpreted/stretched rules, the base you're standing on is shaky to begin with. That's why these threads keep popping up - there is no clear answer, and only some people trying to shout louder than the next person.

No, these arguments pop up because some people can't read.

The Necrons removed via SA take NO FURTHER PART. They cannot come back from being Dead Via WBB because they can take NO FURTHER PART.

Okay, well even though this "discussion" won't go anywhere, I might as well try to add in part of what I think Dash is trying to say:



1) Sweeping Advance says "If the winner's total is equal or greater...the falling back unit is destroyed...The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage" As in, nothing will stop them from getting killed

2) Then, WBB says "Any Necron otherwise removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and laid on it's side to show that it's damaged" Saying that once their destroyed (nothing like ATSKNF or saves saving them from being destroyed) they are laid on their side.

3) Then, assuming that there is another unit (or Tomb Spider) and a Res Orb (weapon ignored their armor save) in range, they would then roll a WBB roll.

Gwar! wrote:No, these arguments pop up because some people can't read.

The Necrons removed via SA take NO FURTHER PART. They cannot come back from being Dead Via WBB because they can take NO FURTHER PART.

Correct. Unless its been specified that they do otherwise. And they have.

Don't bother responding with your "Necron codex doesn't specifically say SA" line, because the English language has you wrong on this one; I even gave you some nice analogies.

There is a really, really clear answer. WBB does not say it works against SA, so it doesn't.

The standard required has been set by ATSKNF. It *specifically states* that SA does not work. WBB does not.

WBB DOES reduce damage. It stops you removing models and keeps them on the table. In a more literal sense the unit still exists* when SA requires that the unit no longer exists. This by definition must be les damage.

*please, argue that damaged necrons are not part of the same unit. We'll all find that argument as hilariously ill founded as this one.

Dash, let me ask you one thing:

How can a rule that did not allow WBB in 4th ed, which has the EXACT SAME TEXT in 5th suddenly allow it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is a really, really clear answer. WBB does not say it works against SA, so it doesn't.

The standard required has been set by ATSKNF. It *specifically states* that SA does not work. WBB does not.

WBB DOES reduce damage. It stops you removing models and keeps them on the table. In a more literal sense the unit still exists* when SA requires that the unit no longer exists. This by definition must be les damage.

*please, argue that damaged necrons are not part of the same unit. We'll all find that argument as hilariously ill founded as this one.

Hey...there's a really, REALLY clear answer. WBB doesn't NEED to say that it works against SA. All it NEEDS to do is specify a behavior different than what happens during the normal course of play (model/unit loses combat, is destroyed, removed from play, no attempt to save or reduce damage allowed). WBB doesn't violate those principles, and provides the requisite description of otherwise specified behavior: Instead of removing from play, lay the model on its side to represent that it is destroyed.

BRB: General rule encompassing behavior.
Codex: Specific rule dictating behavioral change that contradicts BRB.

Result? You follow the Codex.

As for your idea that WBB DOES reduce damage, I'm actually going to break out the dictionary for you because you're failing so badly.

Reduce: "to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc" So says dictionary.com. WBB does not affect the damage that a necron squad takes. If you do 10 wounds to a necron unit, a reduction in damage would bring down to a smaller extent the number of wounds that they take. It does not. They take full damage, presumably are wiped out, and the turn ends.

I suppose that if you and some other folks on here want to create you own language so that you can interpret things however you want and be right, you're welcome to, but none of it works in English. Or French. Or German. Or Chinese. I don't really know any other ones. :(







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:Dash, let me ask you one thing:

How can a rule that did not allow WBB in 4th ed, which has the EXACT SAME TEXT in 5th suddenly allow it?

Gwar! I answered this earlier:

1. I didn't play in 4th edition, I don't care what 4th edition said.

2. As someone else pointed out, in 4th edition, SA specifically addressed WBB and said that it didn't work.

3. If you're requiring me to guess, then I must take the only logical step here and guess that GW decided that it was a foolish rule to not allow WBB to work with SA, and took it out to allow it to happen. If they had intended WBB to not work with SA, they would have left it in. Makes perfect sense.

Feel free to stop trying to interpret a rule that has clearly been changed by GW to mean the same thing that it used to mean, despite the fact that they changed it to specifically say something else.

Dash, let me explain something:
THE RULE IS EXACTLY THE SAME
read the other thread, I showed the rule is the EXACT SAME rule.

P.S. Lol Dictionary.

Hrm....someone earlier in this thread mentioned that 4th edition specifically mentioned sweeping advance; I made a presumption there.

Like I said, I didn't play 4th edition, and I don't care what 4th edition rules were because they are completely irrelevant. 5th edition rules are all that matters.


As an aside, I'm having a blast.

Dashofpepper wrote:Hrm....someone earlier in this thread mentioned that 4th edition specifically mentioned sweeping advance; I made a presumption there.

Like I said, I didn't play 4th edition, and I don't care what 4th edition rules were because they are completely irrelevant. 5th edition rules are all that matters.


As an aside, I'm having a blast.

And Like i said before, the 4th ed and 5th ed rules are the exact same. How does something go from working from not working when there has been no change?

I just addressed this:

I have no idea what the rules were in 4th edition, and I don't care. And things go from working --> not working and vice versus all the time. I have some Tau wargear that does...well, nothing because of the 5th edition rules. I don't care, and I have no interest in bandying semantics with you.

All I do is look a the rules, and read them. Don't interpret them, or compare them to previous editions to derive meaning, and don't oversimplify things to try fitting everything into one clause, because neither language, nor the rulebook is that simple.

Dashofpepper wrote:
Hey...there's a really, REALLY clear answer. WBB doesn't NEED to say that it works against SA. All it NEEDS to do is specify a behavior different than what happens during the normal course of play (model/unit loses combat, is destroyed, removed from play, no attempt to save or reduce damage allowed). WBB doesn't violate those principles, and provides the requisite description of otherwise specified behavior: Instead of removing from play, lay the model on its side to represent that it is destroyed.

BRB: General rule encompassing behavior.
Codex: Specific rule dictating behavioral change that contradicts BRB.

Result? You follow the Codex.

As for your idea that WBB DOES reduce damage, I'm actually going to break out the dictionary for you because you're failing so badly.

WBB DOES need to say that it works against SA, otherwise, as specifically mentioned in the SA rule, it doesn't work.

This is an exception to the Codex > BRB because it specifically says in the SA rule in the BRB that for a rule to trump it, then that rule needs SPECIFICALLY state that it trumps SA.

It doesn't matter if BRB reduces damage or not, that is irrelevant (much like your analogies and dictionary quotes). SA says that the unit is removed from play, WBB tries to prevent it by saying that the models in the unit are placed sideways instead of beeing removed, SA says that it can't be prevented by ANY special rule unless that rule specifically says that it prevents SA.

PhantomViper wrote:

WBB DOES need to say that it works against SA, otherwise, as specifically mentioned in the SA rule, it doesn't work.

Incorrect. You are choosing to interpret what the rule means instead of reading what it says.

The rule says, "Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule blah blah blah"
That is NOT the same as, "No save or special rule can blah blah blah unless that special rule specifically says that it trumps SA."

"Unless otherwise specified" requires you to specify that a unit or model will take a specific action contrary to the results that sweeping advance advocates. Those results are the broad, encompassing rule for how to kill a unit, remove models, etc.

If they wanted, "Unless otherwise specified" to mean "Unless a special rule specifically notes that it overrides sweeping advance..." then they would have written it such. The two meaning are completely opposite.

Again; you're choosing to interpret something in such a fashion that the English language does NOT support. Scroll up or to the previous page for a well-fitting analogy about a father and mother giving directions to their son to put this debate into perspective.

No, you are just being a Stubborn jerk.

Your analogy was a bunch of gak too.

You know I actually agree with Dash on this one. I have the necron codex and the BRB in front of me right now. Looking at it algebraically, the rules say when a model dies remove it, we'll call it X. It also says remove it in the sweeping advance section. In the necron codex it says Any necron model that is reduced to 0 wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show it's damaged. Saying X=special necron rule, Y, for necron models. It says in the BRB that "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit AT THIS STAGE; for them the battle is over. ATSKNF must otherwise specify because it is saving them at the stage of the sweeping advance. WBB is saving them when the sweeping advance is over and done with. After a sweeping advance the models are removed but necrons dont remove their wounded models they place them on their side, because X=Y. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that X cannot = Y so for sweeping advances im going to have to side with Dash on this one.

Gwar! wrote:No, you are just being a Stubborn jerk.

Your analogy was a bunch of gak too.

Indeed...when you cannot manipulate language to give meaning to something lacking it, and you are called out for twisting the rules to mean something that they do not, you can always fall back on name-calling to defeat logic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hades wrote:You know I actually agree with Dash on this one. I have the necron codex and the BRB in front of me right now. Looking at it algebraically, the rules say when a model dies remove it, we'll call it X. It also says remove it in the sweeping advance section. In the necron codex it says Any necron model that is reduced to 0 wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show it's damaged. Saying X=special necron rule, Y, for necron models. It says in the BRB that "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit AT THIS STAGE; for them the battle is over. ATSKNF must otherwise specify because it is saving them at the stage of the sweeping advance. WBB is saving them when the sweeping advance is over and done with. After a sweeping advance the models are removed but necrons dont remove their wounded models they place them on their side, because X=Y. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that X cannot = Y so for sweeping advances im going to have to side with Dash on this one.

Well said. The stage of phase of action is very important to this rule. Folks around here keep trying to make up a rule that creating a unit, resurrecting a unit, or something else is the same thing as reducing damage that was done to it in a previous turn. THAT'S the load of gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just thought of a good one!

That's like trying to argue that the gun drones that disembark from a tau devilfish and form a unit after the devilfish is destroyed is reducing the damage that the devilfish took. Or that Chronus making a unit after his vehicle is destroyed is reducing the damage that the vehicle took.

C'mon guys, stop making up rules and interpretations to suit your agenda and let the rules stand as they are.

Dashofpepper wrote:
C'mon guys, stop making up rules and interpretations to suit your agenda and let the rules stand as they are.

That actually made me laugh out loud.

If Necrons could get back up from sweeping advance, I think they'd be seeing much more play than they are right now. As it is, they can't get back up, most anyone is going to agree with this, no matter how much you explain to your opponent till you're blue in the face that you get your WBB, chances are they won't want to play you, or you'll just get in a 20 minute arguement, either way, the necrons STILL don't get back up.

And Dash, suiting my agenda would be me agreeing with you, I'd love to have my necrons get back up after their failure in CC, however, because it's not correct in the rules, I can't agree.

Modquisition on:

Politeness is Rule #1 on Dakka. Please follow it or this thread will be closed and disciplinary actions taken.

How is this thread not closed already? Or is it okay for Gwar to call people stubborn jerks and post huge all caps stuff now?

Or maybe the rules don't apply equally to everyone...the way We'll Be Back applies equally to sweeping advance like anything else in the game that reduces to zero wounds and/or removes from play as a casualty.

Codex > BRB.

Krang.....OUT!

RxGhost wrote:How is this thread not closed already? Or is it okay for Gwar to call people stubborn jerks and post huge all caps stuff now?

Or maybe the rules don't apply equally to everyone...the way We'll Be Back applies equally to sweeping advance like anything else in the game that reduces to zero wounds and .

Codex > BRB.

Krang.....OUT!

Protip: Read Sweeping Advance.

SA Says BRB> Codex unless Codex explicitly mentions SA

Okay, let me take a crack at this using the presented logic.

Remember:

Sweeping Advance: The falling back unit is destroyed...The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over

WBB: Any necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damage.

Argument 1:
1. Necrons lose combat are caught in a SA
2a. They are reduced to 0 wounds
2b. As per WBB, they are placed on their side
3. Make the WBB rolls

Argument 2:
1. Necrons lose combat and are caught in a SA
2. As per SA, they are removed from play.

We cannot follow argument 1 because of the order of what happens, the models are removed from play; they are not reduced to 0 wounds, and WBB does not intervene at this stage (sweeping advance). I know it has been said that this is flawed logic, but the models are removed from play, nothing can stop this...that's it. You don't take WBB into account.

Dracos wrote: Actually WBB does not overrule SA. Its specific rules overruling general. So generally, when necrons are destroyed they are layed down instead. More specifically, during a sweeping advance no model may use a special rule to save itself unless it specifies differently. WBB does not say that it is exempt from this more specific situation, so it is not.

This is the best way that I can iterate how the rules interact with each other.

SA is a more specific situation of when necron models are removed from play, and it has the trump of "no save or special rule" that needs an anti-trump to be beaten. There is no way to read the rules accurately (while adhering to "specific > general" when in conflict) that allows the necron models to stay on the battlefield. "For them, the battle is over."

This has got to be one of the saddest threads I've ever read in this forum. This rivals Warseer in terms of complete and utter fail.

There have been many times when GW was unclear with their rules--this is not one of them.

Eight Ball wrote:Okay, well even though this "discussion" won't go anywhere, I might as well try to add in part of what I think Dash is trying to say:



1) Sweeping Advance says "If the winner's total is equal or greater...the falling back unit is destroyed...The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage" As in, nothing will stop them from getting killed

2) Then, WBB says "Any Necron otherwise removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and laid on it's side to show that it's damaged" Saying that once their destroyed (nothing like ATSKNF or saves saving them from being destroyed) they are laid on their side.

3) Then, assuming that there is another unit (or Tomb Spider) and a Res Orb (weapon ignored their armor save) in range, they would then roll a WBB roll.

How is leaving the models on the table to come back not reducing the damage they take?

You are tying to pick apart semantics and ignore some parts in order to make the argument work. How are they complying with the part "for them, the battle is over" if you lay them down to take furthur part in the battle?

The SA rule uses no uncertain terms, and this is certainly NOT a case where WBB functions.

Dracos:

How is leaving the models on the table to come back not reducing the damage they take?

Obviously I'm missing something, where is this "reducing damage" part listed in the rulebook?

How are they complying with the part "for them, the battle is over" if you lay them down to take furthur part in the battle?

Well, if you're gonna argue that, how are they complying with "(casualties) are no longer fit to participate in the battle" (pg24 Casualties) ?

EDIT: Note I don't play that Necrons can WBB after SA (due to balance and stuff) but I just want to bring up some points to TRY to have an actual Discussion

Gwar! wrote:

SA Says BRB> Codex unless Codex explicitly mentions SA

See, there you go making up rules to suit your interpretation again. This is *NOT* what the BRB says, and I've explained it as many ways as possible, including the dictionary, analogies, and everything except for giving you pretty diagrams.

The BRB says "Unless directed otherwise, perform action X." The necron codex meets that requirement. The BRB does NOT say "Perform action X unless directed to explicitly not perform action X."

That's exactly the case here. You're adding words, twisting meaning, and jumbling rules in order to make SA apply to WBB when in reality it clearly does not.

Just because WBB doesnt mention sweeping advance does not mean that it is not a way that is "otherwise specified" to handle the unit being wiped.

One could easily read otherwise specified in the case of necrons as "they unit is wiped out so they are placed on their side due to WBB. If a res orb and a like unit are within 6" or a tomb spyder is within 12" and another unit of the same type is on the table then they may make WBB roll.

The otherwise specified method is WBB, it never actually says in the sweeping advance rule that the otherwise specified way of handling the unit being swept must state anything in regards to sweeping advance in its rules. For all intents in purposes sweeping advance is just ignoring saves/invulnerable safes/feel no pain.

Can yarrik/st.celestine/etc, or bionics work against sweeping advance?
What about models that are "without number"?

the removed from play part could be amended by the necrons codex rule of WBB wherein it states instead of being removed from play models are placed on their side.

The necrons arent recieving a save or special rule against the sweeping advance because at the end of the sweeping advance the unit is wiped out/removed.

However WBB states instead of being removed necrons are always left on table on their side for a WBB roll. I realize some people see this as a special save or rule but it is not because they do not immediately get a save or chance to getup in response to being swept so they have not been given a save or special rule to stop the unit from being wiped by sweeping advance.

Dashofpepper wrote:
As for your idea that WBB DOES reduce damage, I'm actually going to break out the dictionary for you because you're failing so badly.

Reduce: "to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc" So says dictionary.com. WBB does not affect the damage that a necron squad takes. If you do 10 wounds to a necron unit, a reduction in damage would bring down to a smaller extent the number of wounds that they take. It does not. They take full damage, presumably are wiped out, and the turn ends.

I suppose that if you and some other folks on here want to create you own language so that you can interpret things however you want and be right, you're welcome to, but none of it works in English. Or French. Or German. Or Chinese. I don't really know any other ones. :(

Wow, still failing there.

So, SA states you remove the UNIT. Under your interpretation the UNIT would remain on the table. Some Unit > no Unit, therefore you have indeed reduced the damage. Also, where does SA state you have reduced them to 0 wounds? You dont - you remove them. They go from 1 wound, halthy models to dead models that no longer exist. Any downedc models are ALSO removed as it states the UNIT is removed.

So to reiterate for the hard of thinking: UNIT > no UNIT, if you attempt to loeave UNIT on the table you have attempted to reduce the damage without - and heres the part you keep wilfully ignoring (or don't understand) - *ever being told you can do so as your rule does not apply*

Additionally you are massively, wildly incorrect on "codex > BRB" it is *actually* Specific > General

BRB: remove models if they become casualties
Codex: dont do this if X,Y, Z conditions are met
BRB: If you are SA you must remove the models UNLESS YOUR RULE SPECIFICALLY STATES OTHERWISE. The standard was set by ATSKNF (which you have again ignored, nice one) where it explicitly states SA does not take effect. WBB never comes close.

The exact same rule was in 4th, all 4th had was a parenthesis (you know, often used as *reminders*) stating WBB as an example. The language has not changed, WBB has not changed, however you suddenly think it works? You're funny. Seriously.