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.

DevianID wrote:
But here is yet another bit of proof for my side. A 2 man necron warrior unit with attached overlord is shot by a terminator units cyclone missile, killing the 2 warriors. Even though the warrior unit is now gone, the overlord still needs a morale, and the terminators, who can only charge the unit they shot at (necron warriors), can still charge the overlord in the next assault phase, despite the warriors dying.

That example actually supports the notion the (Over)lord can get back up. The terminators are permitted to assault the lord because, for purposes of game play, the lord is the same unit shot at in the previous phase. Thus, for purposes of EL, the lord would rejoin the unit he was part of which, by your example above, would be himself.

yakface wrote:
The actual text from the battle report for anyone who doesn't have the mag is:

"...a bout of concentrated fire rom the Space Marines facing West but also supplemented by Vyper fire and even the Wailing Doom of the Avatar, gradually rid the battlefield of the Lychguard and even the Stormlord. But you don't kill the Phaeron of the Sautekh Dynasty that easily. Like all Necron characters, Imotekh has the Ever-living special rule, allowing him to self-repair even when the rest of his unit has been utterly destroyed. And so it was that the Stormlord rose from the ashes, minus his attendant Lychguard but ready to continue the fight."

Who was the author of this battle report ? as if its from Matt Ward himself this would lead me to think an almighty cock-up has either been made in White Dwarf or the Codex .

Its not unknown for battle reports to get rules wrong , and if its not Matt Ward then it is lesser evidence , but if its Matt Ward writing this then this has to support the ' get-up even if your squad is killed ' camp .

Oh well , 20 Quid for the usual GW standard of Codex writing

Dynamix wrote:
Who was the author of this battle report ? as if its from Matt Ward himself this would lead me to think an almighty cock-up has either been made in White Dwarf or the Codex .

Its not unknown for battle reports to get rules wrong , and if its not Matt Ward then it is lesser evidence , but if its Matt Ward writing this then this has to support the ' get-up even if your squad is killed ' camp .

Oh well , 20 Quid for the usual GW standard of Codex writing

Yep, Mat Ward was playing Imotekh.

yakface wrote:

Dynamix wrote:
Who was the author of this battle report ? as if its from Matt Ward himself this would lead me to think an almighty cock-up has either been made in White Dwarf or the Codex .

Its not unknown for battle reports to get rules wrong , and if its not Matt Ward then it is lesser evidence , but if its Matt Ward writing this then this has to support the ' get-up even if your squad is killed ' camp .

Oh well , 20 Quid for the usual GW standard of Codex writing

Yep, Mat Ward was playing Imotekh.

Thanks Yakface - I think I will have to take this as meaning the Character can get back up if they were in a destroyed squad despite the way the rules read ( to me .. and others ) .

Good job my Club will trust me if I say this is the case

That example actually supports the notion the (Over)lord can get back up. The terminators are permitted to assault the lord because, for purposes of game play, the lord is the same unit shot at in the previous phase. Thus, for purposes of EL, the lord would rejoin the unit he was part of which, by your example above, would be himself.

When the overlord joined the warrior unit, he counted as a part of the warrior unit. The terminators shot the warrior unit. The 2 warriors died. The terminators can only assault the unit they shot (the warrior unit) and yet they can still assault the overlord, who counts as the warrior unit when he joins them in his movement phase and he stays 'joined' until his next movement phase.

Also, the wording is VERY specific... if he dies whilst joined to a unit, when he comes back up he must be placed in coherency with the unit he was joined to when he died. If the unit is not there any more (perhaps they are still alive but thanks to casualty removal to far away from the lord) then the lord can not be placed in coherency with his unit he was joined to when he died. Reading further, if the lord can not be placed for whatever reason, he cant come back.

So even if you ignore the fact that he stays joined until his next movement phase (like a vehicle squadron stays a squardron and follows the squadron rules even if reduced to a single vehicle until the enemy shoots at it in the shooting phase), if when the lord died he was joined to still living models, and when he tries to come back there are no nearby models he was joined to when he died, then the everliving stay dead.

BTW, the squadron rules, and the rules for when exactly the unit, reduced to a single model, changes from 'squadroned' to 'singular' (aka only when shot at by the enemy with 1 vehicle remaining) is logically similar to how a character, joined to a unit, stays joined to the unit even if reduced to himself alone until his next movement phase.

I think there is a RAI vs RAW situation. I believe the intent is for the IC to be able to get back up regardless of the status of the unit joined. However, currently, for the IC to be able to get back up if the entire unit is destroyed requires some rules juggling to show the IC is no longer part of the unit, juggling that I can't seem to do. I think it's there just can show it.

Here's a twist on the current theme: What if all but the IC is destroyed in the Shooting phase but the IC is damaged in the Assault phase, can the IC get back up?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:I think there is a RAI vs RAW situation.

Agreed

The way it reads and anyone else I have shown the Ever Living rule to says no get back up if the squad EL model joined is destroyed .

If the Intent was to allow the ' getbackup ' what an appalling piece of rules writing

Alright... Hope the FAQ comes soon then.
From a more curious point though - What happens if all the models in a unit are Ever-living? For example, 5 Necron Lords running around?

If you are "the unit" then by definition you are within 2" of yourself

nos that is not true... if you must be placed in coherency, and you can count your own model as being in coherency with itself, then units could spread out as much as they want... as they all are in coherency with at least one model... their own.

Since this is not true, we know it doesnt work that way.

But even if it did work that way, under the necron rules for getting back up they specify that the model you return must be in coherency with one that did not get back up this turn...

Actually, it appears that even if you have an entire unit of everliving there must be at least one that does not die for any to be able to get back up. Everliving models can only stand back up if they were by themselves, or if someone in their unit didnt die.

Yeah, I'm almost certain this is badly worded. Re-reading it, it seems if a Lord's squad dies and the Lord dies in the same turn, the Lord can't self repair. But given that Mat Ward used it as "Ever-Living = always RP" in the WD battle, it's obviously supposed to mean if the Lord's squad is still alive he is placed in coherency with them. Otherwise he just stands up within 3" of the Ever Living counter as if he'd been on his own. RAW, he dies. RAI, he lives.

DevianID wrote:nos that is not true... if you must be placed in coherency, and you can count your own model as being in coherency with itself, then units could spread out as much as they want... as they all are in coherency with at least one model... their own.

Don't the coherency rules say one other model? (don't have access to my BRB atm)

DevianID - NO, check the actual rules for coherency on page 12

"the distance between one model and the next s no more than 2""

If you are a one model unit, you are by definition in coherency with yourself - in fact you are no longer required to check for coherency, as there are no other models in the unit. It also still doesnt allow what you suggested could happen.

Roleplayer wrote:

This however makes me wonder why you would ever take 5 lychguard with warscythes over 5 lords with warscythes, considering the lord unit can be wiped out and get back up of its own accord, and only costs 15 pts more...

Because to even out the lords compared to the lychguard is double the point cost (lord w/ scythe x5 is 450 pts, x5 lychguard = 200). Also you can't get ten lords in the same unit.

That said however, in a high point game that has some serious potential... 5x lords w/ weave,shifter,scarabs and 1 with an orb is 720 points of "let me make your entire unit kill itself before you get to attack"

Dytalus wrote:Yeah, I'm almost certain this is badly worded. Re-reading it, it seems if a Lord's squad dies and the Lord dies in the same turn, the Lord can't self repair. But given that Mat Ward used it as "Ever-Living = always RP" in the WD battle, it's obviously supposed to mean if the Lord's squad is still alive he is placed in coherency with them. Otherwise he just stands up within 3" of the Ever Living counter as if he'd been on his own. RAW, he dies. RAI, he lives.

That's odd. When I read it, it says that he may stand up even if the squad he was attached to is destroyed.

I can't find a sentence that states that. By the interpretation of the rules, the Character has to rejoin the unit he was a member of when he died. ie: Necron Lord is with a unit of warriors. The Lord is killed, when he self repairs he has to be placed in coherency with the warrior unit. However, the Ever Living rule also says if the character cannot be placed for any reason (ie, he cannot be placed in coherency) he is discarded. This seems to imply that if the Lord's unit is wiped out in one shooting/assault phase (including the Lord) he cannot self repair. There's no unit to rejoin, so he cannot be placed in coherency with the unit he was joined with when he died.

That's how it seems to read, but it's pretty obvious they're supposed to be able to repair regardless.

A single member of a unit does not have to be in coherency; coherency ONLY applies when you have more than one model. Read the rules quote i put up above.

BY DEFINITION a single model returned has been placed in coherency, because coherency does not apply to a single model.

@Dytalus I believe that is a reference to the fact that it cannot be less that 1" away from an enemy.

It says, "if it had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty". Joined = Part of. If the squad is dead he can no longer be considered joined, and as such can get back up by himself.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:I think there is a RAI vs RAW situation. I believe the intent is for the IC to be able to get back up regardless of the status of the unit joined. However, currently, for the IC to be able to get back up if the entire unit is destroyed requires some rules juggling to show the IC is no longer part of the unit, juggling that I can't seem to do. I think it's there just can show it.

This I can agree with. IMO, the intent was to allow the IC to stand up no matter what, but in typical GW fashion they screwed up the rule.

Dytalus wrote:I can't find a sentence that states that. By the interpretation of the rules, the Character has to rejoin the unit he was a member of when he died. ie: Necron Lord is with a unit of warriors. The Lord is killed, when he self repairs he has to be placed in coherency with the warrior unit. However, the Ever Living rule also says if the character cannot be placed for any reason (ie, he cannot be placed in coherency) he is discarded.

The Lord is part of the Warrior unit.
Every model is removed as a casualty.
All the Warriors fail RP.
The Lord stands up, is in coherency with himself, so is representing the Warrior unit with a model count of one.
He looks around and sees his buddies all gone and cries himself to sleep.

A one model unit is always in coherency with itself.

So , if its taken the rules are meant to say the EL model can get back up regardless of the presence of the squad it was in - why doesnt it say this - as it doesnt anywhere I can see .
Is a line missing from the EL rule ?

So I guess the two situations explained in the EL rule , part of a squad or independent , covers where to place the EL Model in those two situations if an Ever Living roll is succesful .

If the Ever Living model is meant to come back unless there has been a printing error this is a most inept attempt to write down and communicate a rule , and the writer should prostrate himself in shame

Dynamix wrote:So , if its taken the rules are meant to say the EL model can get back up regardless of the presence of the squad it was in - why doesnt it say this - as it doesnt anywhere I can see .
Is a line missing from the EL rule ?

So I guess the two situations explained in the EL rule , part of a squad or independent , covers where to place the EL Model in those two situations if an Ever Living roll is succesful .

If the Ever Living model is meant to come back unless there has been a printing error this is the most inept attempt to write a rule that I have ever seen , and the writer should prostrate himself in shame

Its possible...they could have tried too hard to make it clear, and ended up making it even more complex instead. Remember that it was Ward who wrote the codex (Just wrote, not the main guy behind the codex, I do not want this to devolve into a hate thread, thank you very much) and he's not the best writer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:A single member of a unit does not have to be in coherency; coherency ONLY applies when you have more than one model. Read the rules quote i put up above.

BY DEFINITION a single model returned has been placed in coherency, because coherency does not apply to a single model.

The wording of EL is very specific. It states the EL model is placed in coherency with that unit he is in. Further, the rules for the placement is dictated by the RP rule which states if the unit is destroyed the unit cannot get back up. So, if the entire unit, including the IC, is destroyed, the unit is gone but the rule of the IC placement insists the IC be placed in coherency with the unit. Since it can't, one of the clauses of EL states the IC model is destroyed.

The verbiage of the rules is piss poor. I thought WBB had problems but this is just plain silly. It'll be FAQed, but for the time being, if the entire unit is destroyed, the entire unit (including those models with EL) are removed from the table. Sigh.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:A single member of a unit does not have to be in coherency; coherency ONLY applies when you have more than one model. Read the rules quote i put up above.

BY DEFINITION a single model returned has been placed in coherency, because coherency does not apply to a single model.

The wording of EL is very specific. It states the EL model is placed in coherency with that unit he is in. Further, the rules for the placement is dictated by the RP rule which states if the unit is destroyed the unit cannot get back up. So, if the entire unit, including the IC, is destroyed, the unit is gone but the rule of the IC placement insists the IC be placed in coherency with the unit. Since it can't, one of the clauses of EL states the IC model is destroyed.

The verbiage of the rules is piss poor. I thought WBB had problems but this is just plain silly. It'll be FAQed, but for the time being, if the entire unit is destroyed, the entire unit (including those models with EL) are removed from the table. Sigh.

No, even with RAW, the lord comes back. The rulebook definition of coherency is no more than 2" between models in the unit. He is the only model in the unit, so he cannot possibly be placed out of coherency.

No, even with RAW, the lord comes back. The rulebook definition of coherency is no more than 2" between models in the unit. He is the only model in the unit, so he cannot possibly be placed out of coherency.

I cant agee that its clear and unambiguous RAW

I can see your point that it was part of the unit but I feel the statement that it must be placed in coherency with the unit seems RAW that there needs to be another model there . I accept your point also that he was part of the unit so can ' rejoin ' in coherency with itself

I agree the RAI seems to be that he comes back , it just doesnt seem to be backed up by clear RAW

We played a test game last night and it basically read that ever-living is for the IC's to come back even if the unit did not.

Our interpretation for the "if unable to place" was because of space limitations.

So as a side effect, if you kill your EL opponent, flood the area with bases, because he has to get up within 3" of dying, and if he can't then he's removed from play?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:So as a side effect, if you kill your EL opponent, flood the area with bases, because he has to get up within 3" of dying, and if he can't then he's removed from play?

Cheers

Andrew

Yes. This is what the final condition was referring to.

Nate668 wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:A single member of a unit does not have to be in coherency; coherency ONLY applies when you have more than one model. Read the rules quote i put up above.

BY DEFINITION a single model returned has been placed in coherency, because coherency does not apply to a single model.

The wording of EL is very specific. It states the EL model is placed in coherency with that unit he is in. Further, the rules for the placement is dictated by the RP rule which states if the unit is destroyed the unit cannot get back up. So, if the entire unit, including the IC, is destroyed, the unit is gone but the rule of the IC placement insists the IC be placed in coherency with the unit. Since it can't, one of the clauses of EL states the IC model is destroyed.

The verbiage of the rules is piss poor. I thought WBB had problems but this is just plain silly. It'll be FAQed, but for the time being, if the entire unit is destroyed, the entire unit (including those models with EL) are removed from the table. Sigh.

No, even with RAW, the lord comes back. The rulebook definition of coherency is no more than 2" between models in the unit. He is the only model in the unit, so he cannot possibly be placed out of coherency.

No, the RAW in the codex states the lord MUST join the unit he was with per the RP rules. If the lord cannot be placed per the RP rule he is destroyed. The RP rules states if the unit is destroyed the counter are removed, the character cannot save the unit. By the RAW, since the lord cannot join the unit, per RP, the lord is removed.

A truly lousy way of writing: If the character is alone..... If the unit the character joined still exists........

No, the lord does not have to join - the Lord has to be *placed in coherency with* the unit. There is NO coherency required when you are a single model unit, by the definition of Coherency - coherency is inapplicable with single model units.