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.

Happyjew wrote:Reading what you wrote implies (to me anyway) that nothing happens if a fearless unit gets caught in a sweeping advance. A unit can never attempt to sweep a Fearless unit as it will never fall back from combat.

If that is not what you were saying, my apologies.

Ah, ok, I see it now. Ya, sorry, I just meant more that those types of units can't get sweeping advanced, I didn't really want to go into the particulars of "why" they can't. Wasn't really relevant to the thread. Thanks for the clarify in case someone else interpreted it that way too.

The 6th edition rulebook says no special rule or ability can rescue them, for them the battle is over. Seems pretty final to me.

Unit falls back and gets away, no RP but yes EL.
Unit falls back and gets swept up in a SA, no RP or EL.

Captain Antivas wrote:The 6th edition rulebook says no special rule or ability can rescue them, for them the battle is over. Seems pretty final to me.

Unit falls back and gets away, no RP but yes EL.
Unit falls back and gets swept up in a SA, no RP or EL.

Like I said, I agree with you. But as I said, my contention with the rules is if the EL model is "already" dead when SA happens...meaning, he is an "EL Token" at combat resolution. Is he still part of the squad as a token?

I play it as yes, as I do not want to come across as TFG with my buddies. I also know that most or all TO's and most likely GW (if ever clarified by them) would say the same. But as it stands, I'm just not sure. I'm also not arguing that point, just putting it out there.

Oh I know. I.was just putting my opinion out there not replying to anyone in particular. And of course the faq is no help.

It really comes down to a couple things.

Nothing can "save" them. No armor saves can be taken, invuln, cover etc.. The unit is dead and removed as a casualty. There is no argument there.

At this stage limits the SA to that particular section of the close combat sequence.

RP and EL do not "save" models. Those models are replaced by a token and then rolled for at the end of the phase. Now RP cannot be used, because RP states that it cannot. RP token are removed from the unit when it "falls back" which is a prereq to SA. RP token are removed if the whole unit is destroyed, which SA will do. Therefore a unit that is Swept cannot use RP.

EL has no such restriction on its token. That token is never removed unless the roll for EL fails.

EL and SA do not conflict.

SA: Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule can rescue the unit at this stage. EL is not a save but could be considered a special rule. However it does not apply "at this stage". EL applies at the end of the phase. After SA there is a consolidation stage that occurs before the end of the phase so there is no conflict with EL and SA going off at the same time.

The FAQ doesnt help either in regards to a SA and EL. It does say that an EL model can return even if the entire unit is destroyed, which SA does.

"At this stage limits the SA to that particular section of the close combat sequence. "

Again, that is not supported by the context of the rule. Nothing can save them at this stage means that, by the time you reach this point, nothing further can be done to save the unit from destruction. Not that this point in time is the only time they can be destroyed.

AGain: you are claiming that WBB would work, when the SAME SA rule (barring specific mention of RaaC) specificwally denied WBB in 4th.

Again: SA is functionally identical in 4th, 5th and 6th as regards the restriction on special rules. You contention is absurd as it directly contradicts the established fact that WBB, which functions even later than EL / RP, would not work.

given you cannot contradict this while maintaining a consistent argument, your argument is proven wrong. QED

Necron Codex, page 29 -
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty"

What do Sweeping Advances do?

BRB, page 27 -
"The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

In prior editions, I would never have argued for EL to come back. In 6th, the reading of the rules couldn't be any clearer to me. RP units are, of course, gone for good. EL units are not.

Fafnir13 wrote:Necron Codex, page 29 -
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty"

What do Sweeping Advances do?

BRB, page 27 -
"The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

In prior editions, I would never have argued for EL to come back. In 6th, the reading of the rules couldn't be any clearer to me. RP units are, of course, gone for good. EL units are not.

No, you need the rule to explicitly say that it works despite Sweeping Advance's prohibiton for special rules to save you. It doesn't.

Fafnir13 wrote:
EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

No it isn't. Everliving does not say anything about Sweeping Advance, which is required for the "otherwise specified" portion to be fullfilled.
I can give you example of a rule that actually does fullfill the "Unless otherwise specified": ATSKNF: (page 33, BRB)
"If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance,they are not destroyed, ..."

So unless rule or FAQ ruling mentions Sweeping Advance, it cannot save unit from being destroyed by a Sweeping Advance. This is what the "Unless otherwise specified" means.

Fafnir13 wrote:Necron Codex, page 29 -
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty"

What do Sweeping Advances do?

BRB, page 27 -
"The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."

EL triggers on "removed as casualties." Therefore, the "Unless otherwise specified" bit from Sweeping Advances is fulfilled.

In prior editions, I would never have argued for EL to come back. In 6th, the reading of the rules couldn't be any clearer to me. RP units are, of course, gone for good. EL units are not.

Read ATSKNF. That is what SPECIFIC means. Being removed as a casualty is less specific than being removedas a casualty by Sweeping Advance and not being allowed to be saved unless your special rule specifies differently

nosferatu1001 wrote:AGain: you are claiming that WBB would work, when the SAME SA rule (barring specific mention of RaaC) specificwally denied WBB in 4th.

You contention is absurd as it directly contradicts the established fact that WBB, which functions even later than EL / RP, would not work.

Your quoting a 4th edition rule in 6th edition? I don't have access to it, but if you want to discuss the 4th edition version, SA and WBB, post it verbatim or a link to it.

The wording in 4th was identical to 5th, however, after the no special rules it said "(for example, We'll Be Back)".

It also has something about Massacre, which has nothing to do with this.

Happyjew wrote:The wording in 4th was identical to 5th, however, after the no special rules it said "(for example, We'll Be Back)".

It also has something about Massacre, which has nothing to do with this.

Ok, but again thats rules from 2 editions ago. Also WBB was worded and operated completely differently that RP/EL.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Read ATSKNF. That is what SPECIFIC means. Being removed as a casualty is less specific than being removedas a casualty by Sweeping Advance and not being allowed to be saved unless your special rule specifies differently

Your confusing words. Specified =/= Specific

Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Sweeping Advances says units are removed as casualties with no special rule saving them unless otherwise SPECIFIED. Ever Living SPECIFIES that a model being removed as a casualty gets to place an EL token.
This doesn't take any fancy twisting of the rules to arrive at. SA says "remove as casualties." EL triggers on "remove as casualties." The source of the removal doesn't matter. It could be shooting, assaulting, random fancy abilities, or anything that says it removes as casualties.

The short of it is that SA was changed. They didn't have to add "remove as casualties" to it, but they did. That is all the permission I or any other Necron player needs to place an EL counter.
I'm just reading the rules as written.

Wrong. Seriously, wrong. Read ATSKNF for what specified actually means.

The rule has to specify it works with SA, and keeps the unit alive. If it does not SPECIFY that Sweeping ADvance is ignored, then it isnt. Again, WBB. This foils your argument again. AS does ATSKNF.

Fragile - you're missing the point, entirely. WBB operated later in the game than EL, by definition. So an argument about timing, which is ALL your argument is, is foiled because WBB was denied from operating in the exact same rule sentence you are claiming allows EL.

In 4th ed, WBB did not work for two reasons. One, the rulebook specified it did not work (as a special rule). Two, WBB worked only if removed as a casualty and SA did not remove you as a casualty.

Reason Two still existed in 5th ed, hence the reason WBB/EL would not work when Swept.

Sixth Edition changed SA to Remove as a Casualty (which EL allows a model to come back).

As it stands, it is possible that GW meant EL to work when swept, but if that is so, then they will need to FAQ it.

Errata, so it specifically states it works even against SA.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Fragile - you're missing the point, entirely. WBB operated later in the game than EL, by definition. So an argument about timing, which is ALL your argument is, is foiled because WBB was denied from operating in the exact same rule sentence you are claiming allows EL.

I could be missing the point Nosf, but your still arguing about a 4th edition rule that doesnt exist anymore. And your comparing it to EL which is worded and works entirely differently. You may well be correct in this. I do not play Necrons, nor really do I care how a ruling on this turns out to be. But if you read SA and EL, there is nothing prohibiting EL from placing a Token and then rolling later in that phase to bring the model back without further FAQ or Errata

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. Seriously, wrong. Read ATSKNF for what specified actually means.

The rule has to specify it works with SA, and keeps the unit alive. If it does not SPECIFY that Sweeping ADvance is ignored, then it isnt. Again, WBB. This foils your argument again. AS does ATSKNF.

Seriously, wrong.
It does not have to specify that it works against Sweeping Advances. That's your own made up rule/opinion. Sweeping Advances states that no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified. EL does this as it SPECIFIES (all-caps for emphasis) that it works whenever a model is removed as a casualty. Sweeping Advances destroy units by removing them as casualties.

I don't know what version of English your speaking where specified doesn't mean specified.

Again:
Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Remove as casualty is a condition of EL. SA removes as casualty. Condition met; therefore meets SA's condition of "Unless otherwise specified." Your opinion that it has to say "works against Sweeping Advances" is not backed up by this basic reading of the rules.

Fafnir13 wrote:
Seriously, wrong.
It does not have to specify that it works against Sweeping Advances. That's your own made up rule/opinion. Sweeping Advances states that no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified. EL does this as it SPECIFIES (all-caps for emphasis) that it works whenever a model is removed as a casualty. Sweeping Advances destroy units by removing them as casualties.

I don't know what version of English your speaking where specified doesn't mean specified.

Again:
Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Remove as casualty is a condition of EL. SA removes as casualty. Condition met; therefore meets SA's condition of "Unless otherwise specified." Your opinion that it has to say "works against Sweeping Advances" is not backed up by this basic reading of the rules.

I see it this way to ,but currently the Necrons are the army with some nice special rules that people don't like.

This is a simple case of choosing " unless otherwise stated " to mean it must state that it works re this rule and accepting nothing else .

As the above says the rule states " unless otherwise stated "and the EL rule states that it works re RFPAAC. that means the otherwise stated criteria has been met ,choosing to say it must say it works against SA when there is nothing to back up that position, as it does not say " no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified to work against SA" is adding your own spin on the rule and not using RAW

Sweeping Advance says:
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." P.27

Does EL Specify that it works against Sweeping Advance?

The rules I quoted above could say this and it would mean the same thing (a save or special rule can only rescue the unit if it specifies that it works against Sweeping Advance).

DeathReaper wrote:Sweeping Advance says:
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over." P.27

Does EL Specify that it works against Sweeping Advance?

The rules I quoted above could say this and it would mean the same thing (a save or special rule can only rescue the unit if it specifies that it works against Sweeping Advance).

This. You don't get to save yourself with a special rule unless said special rule explicitly lets you ignore that part of Sweeping Advance, which EL doesn't.

Fafnir13 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. Seriously, wrong. Read ATSKNF for what specified actually means.

The rule has to specify it works with SA, and keeps the unit alive. If it does not SPECIFY that Sweeping ADvance is ignored, then it isnt. Again, WBB. This foils your argument again. AS does ATSKNF.

Seriously, wrong.
It does not have to specify that it works against Sweeping Advances. That's your own made up rule/opinion. Sweeping Advances states that no special rule saves you unless otherwise specified. EL does this as it SPECIFIES (all-caps for emphasis) that it works whenever a model is removed as a casualty. Sweeping Advances destroy units by removing them as casualties.

I don't know what version of English your speaking where specified doesn't mean specified.

Again:
Specified (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specified)
3. To state as a condition: specified that they be included in the will.


Remove as casualty is a condition of EL. SA removes as casualty. Condition met; therefore meets SA's condition of "Unless otherwise specified." Your opinion that it has to say "works against Sweeping Advances" is not backed up by this basic reading of the rules.

Again, find where EL specifies it works against SA. BEcause currently your "specified " is not fulfilled, no matter how many times you break the forum rules. Find where "specified" is against SA. NOt against Removed as a Casaulty. Hint: one appears in the rules quote, one doesnt.

"Specified" is fulfilled. It removes as casualties.
You cannot convince me otherwise.

Specified relates to the Sweeping Advance rule

If the actual rule stating something otherwise wont convince you i dont know what will..

Fafnir13 wrote:"Specified" is fulfilled. It removes as casualties.
You cannot convince me otherwise.

Specified is fulfilled if it says it works against SA.

EL is not " otherwise specified" to work after a SA.

Therefore EL can not save a model from a SA.

Permissive ruleset tells us this is true.

An Everliving token is treated in the same manner as a RP token. If a fallback move is made, those EL tokens are also lost.
If you treat EL as a token that is not like RP, then it would not benefit from the Resurrection Orb. Since its been FaQed as working with an orb, that lends credence to it being treated as a RP token.

DeathReaper wrote:
Specified is fulfilled if it says it works against SA.

That is not what the rules say. It says "Unless otherwise specified." Not "Unless specified it works against SA." You are, as Snakel put it, adding your own spin on it.
What the rules say is nothing saves the model from SA unless the otherwise specified. EL specifies to place an EL token when the model is removed as a casualty. SA removes the model as a casualty.
That's straight up RAW.

Xzerios wrote:An Everliving token is treated in the same manner as a RP token. If a fallback move is made, those EL tokens are also lost.
If you treat EL as a token that is not like RP, then it would not benefit from the Resurrection Orb. Since its been FaQed as working with an orb, that lends credence to it being treated as a RP token.

Different issue. The discussion here pertains to an Overlord that is alive being killed by SA.
Incidentally, you're wrong. EL specifically says to not attach the EL token to the unit. "Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."
But that's a separate discussion.

Fafnir13 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
Specified is fulfilled if it says it works against SA.

That is not what the rules say. It says "Unless otherwise specified." Not "Unless specified it works against SA." You are, as Snakel put it, adding your own spin on it.

The Context of the rules tells us this, I am not adding it in.


No save or other special rule can rescue the unit unless it specifies otherwise.

Does SA Specify otherwise in regards to the SA rule?
No it does not.

Fafnir13 wrote:"Specified" is fulfilled. It removes as casualties.
You cannot convince me otherwise.

That's not a good attitude to have. That says no matter how good your argument is I will ignore it. When you are so set in your own understanding that you refuse to consider that another might be right you have lost more than the argument. What if GW FAQs it to say you are wrong? Will you accept that?