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.

DJ - because atsknf states it works

Without a line in EL mentioning SA, it doesn't work

It really is that simple. Oh, and the battle is defined, and being told the battle is over for the unit tells you they play no further part means exactly that,

Scarey Nerd wrote:

Once again, Ever Living does not state that the counters remain in the face of Sweeping Advance, and therefore they don't. SA is a very all-encompassing rule that means unless something specifically says so, SA trumps it.

You've got that backwards. EL tells us to place the counters, and what to do if the counters still exist at the end of the phase. Unlike the RP rule EL rule does not tell us to remove these counters if the unit is destroyed, nor does the SA rule tell us to remove the counters. You do not have permission to remove the counters because of a sweeping advance. However you are not allowed to make the rolls for these counters if the unit has been destroyed so these counters will essentially do nothing for the rest of the game.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Ok, so "For them the battle is over" seems to be as much a rule as "the hatches are blown" and if no special rule can save a model from a sweeping advance how does ATSKNF pull it off.

I wonder if ATSKNF has specific wording to allow it... Specific vs general and all.

This questions seems to be, um, wrong. The unit was destroyed so no roll should be permitted correct? Also, the character was attached to the unit so it must return to play with a single wound in coherency with that unit. It can't be becouse that unit is no more so the model should be lost and not return. Instead they tell us to place him withing 3" of the counter, something you only do if the model was not attached to a unit. Can some one explain this FAQ entry?

There's only a problem with the FAQ entry if you assume FAQs can't change rules.
They can, so the entry is fine.

rigeld2 wrote:

There's only a problem with the FAQ entry if you assume FAQs can't change rules.
They can, so the entry is fine.

No, FAQ Questions/Answers cannot change rules. Errata change rules, Amendments add new rules and Question/Answers only provide clarity on rules that already exist.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There's only a problem with the FAQ entry if you assume FAQs can't change rules.
They can, so the entry is fine.

No, FAQ Questions/Answers cannot change rules. Errata change rules, Amendments add new rules and Question/Answers only provide clarity on rules that already exist.

You can keep your head in the sand, but that's been proven wrong repeatedly.

copper.talos wrote:
@nutty_nutter There are 2 kinds of necron counters. RP and EL.

RP counters are placed on the unit and are removed the moment the unit fails a morale test or there are no more (eligible) models in the unit. So when a unit is caught in a SA all these counters are removed.

The second kind are EL counters. These are not placed on the unit, and will stay on the table even if the unit lost a morale check or has been wiped out. So they can stay even after a sweeping advance.

your just glossing over the answer part aren't you....

A: They are lost and no Reanimation Protocols/Ever-living rolls
are made.


made it a bit clearer for you to read.

copper.talos wrote:
@Scarey Nerd A model/unit that dies is not saved nor rescued. There is no contradiction.

Except when you put it back on the table. That's the very definition of being 'saved'.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

There's only a problem with the FAQ entry if you assume FAQs can't change rules.
They can, so the entry is fine.

No, FAQ Questions/Answers cannot change rules. Errata change rules, Amendments add new rules and Question/Answers only provide clarity on rules that already exist.

You can keep your head in the sand, but that's been proven wrong repeatedly.

It's helpful to people's understanding of these documents that we provide a clear distinction between Errata and FAQs.

Errata provide corrections to the errors that sometimes creep into our books. It is important to note that Errata carry the same 'authority' as the main rules and permanently modify published material; where one of our books says one thing and the errata changes this to something else, the errata takes precedence as the 'correct' version of that material.

Amendments are changes made to our rules in order to make them work within a new context; the most common example would be when a new core rulebook is released which then has a knock-on effect of invalidating existing material. They are not designed to fix newly created weaknesses or shortfalls, but simply to ensure that no rule, unit, item of equipment or whatever else is left incompatible with the current edition of the game.

FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

All this means is that on more then one occasion the official interpretation of a rule flat out contradicts the RAW. So the question becomes what rule are they interpreting and how does it apply to this situation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
@Scarey Nerd A model/unit that dies is not saved nor rescued. There is no contradiction.

Except when you put it back on the table. That's the very definition of being 'saved'.

No, preventing it from being taken off the table would be the definition of being saved. The EL rule clearly states the model has 'died'. Putting it back on the table did not save the model, it just gave it another go. If you eat a hot dog, and some one gives you another hot dog they have not saved the first hot dog.

So you think WBB worked against sweeping advance? The model isn't even taken off the table, but left on its side.

No, ELMfails to work against SA because it does not say it works. Look at atsknf,notice the language used. That's what aSA needs

nosferatu1001, when you say WBB do you mean RP? If so then of course not. The RP counters are removed when the unit is destroyed. The difference is EL counters are not removed because the unit was destroyed. At the end of the phase you are told to make Reanimation Protocol rolls for those counters. You can't because you are denied permission to make those rolls if the unit was destroyed.

 DJGietzen wrote:
All this means is that on more then one occasion the official interpretation of a rule flat out contradicts the RAW. So the question becomes what rule are they interpreting and how does it apply to this situation?

And when the FAQ flat out contradicts the RAW and you play according to the FAQ are you still playing according to the same rule? Or a different one?

Since the FAQ cited page 29 of the Necron codex it'd have to be the RP/EL rules.
Not sure why that matters...

No, preventing it from being taken off the table would be the definition of being saved. The EL rule clearly states the model has 'died'. Putting it back on the table did not save the model, it just gave it another go. If you eat a hot dog, and some one gives you another hot dog they have not saved the first hot dog.

Correct. But if they pull the remains of the first hot dog out of your stomach they've saved it.
Your example puts a new unit down - something that EL explicitly does not do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
nosferatu1001, when you say WBB do you mean RP? If so then of course not. The RP counters are removed when the unit is destroyed. The difference is EL counters are not removed because the unit was destroyed. At the end of the phase you are told to make Reanimation Protocol rolls for those counters. You can't because you are denied permission to make those rolls if the unit was destroyed.

He's comparing the old WBB situation to the current situation.
The rules involved are still worded very similarly. I disagree with using such a comparison, but I'm explaining why he's asking.

 DJGietzen wrote:
nosferatu1001, when you say WBB do you mean RP? If so then of course not. The RP counters are removed when the unit is destroyed. The difference is EL counters are not removed because the unit was destroyed. At the end of the phase you are told to make Reanimation Protocol rolls for those counters. You can't because you are denied permission to make those rolls if the unit was destroyed.

No, it's why I asked "worked", I meant what I said

Again: the battle is defined, and being told it is over is a clear rile - they cannot take any further part, otherwise their battle isn't over

 DJGietzen wrote:
Ok, so "For them the battle is over" seems to be as much a rule as "the hatches are blown" and if no special rule can save a model from a sweeping advance how does ATSKNF pull it off. Besides a model being placed on the table after its been removed as a caualty does not save it from a sweeping advance. In fact the sweeping advance has to succeed in order for the model to be removed in the 1st place.

But, and I'll admit I don't play Necrons but I do have the codex, I don't see anything that states EL counters are removed if the unit falls back. I do see that Reanimation Protocol rolls cannot be made if the unit has been destroyed. I also see that rolls for EL counters are Reanimation Protocol rolls, something that is confirmed in the FAQ. That seems very cut and dry. If the model is part of a unit that is destroyed(as it would be during a SA) then you cannot make any reanimation protocol rolls for the units ever living counters.

I am then confused by this FAQ entry

Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal
Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol
rolls? (p29)
A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached
character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this
case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has
been wiped out.

This questions seems to be, um, wrong. The unit was destroyed so no roll should be permitted correct? Also, the character was attached to the unit so it must return to play with a single wound in coherency with that unit. It can't be becouse that unit is no more so the model should be lost and not return. Instead they tell us to place him withing 3" of the counter, something you only do if the model was not attached to a unit. Can some one explain this FAQ entry?

I agree about what you say about

' for them the battle is over'

On the IC, IMO The IC is always still a unit on its own, though while part of the unit, unit rules and tests are as if they are one unit. When the IC dies you have killed a unit (and get a VP for first blood if still available) or in this case while the joined unit was killed the IC still counted as a unit for the purposes of EL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anyone can page reference 'battle' things or just sections off the top of there head so I could take a look without guessing and going through everything.

As far as I can see the rules are the unit is removed as a casualty, and no special rules can save them (unless stated). I wouldn't say this interferes with the rules of EL directly, but looks more like intended to.

atsknf rule specifically has a sweeping advance clause, that is why it works,

EL does not,

see the difference?

SA says no special rules can sve the unit, and yet we have people arguing how a special rule, with no SA exemption, saves a member of the unit.

every single argument for SA being over ruled by EL has contradicted them selves in their argument, and are just flat wrong.

every argument for EL over rulling SA goes like this

"yes, I KNOW SA cannot be over ruled by a special rule,
but here is how I get by it, with a special rule with no SA exemption"

 easysauce wrote:
atsknf rule specifically has a sweeping advance clause, that is why it works,

EL does not,

see the difference?

SA says no special rules can sve the unit, and yet we have people arguing how a special rule, with no SA exemption, saves a member of the unit.

every single argument for SA being over ruled by EL has contradicted them selves in their argument, and are just flat wrong.

every argument for EL over rulling SA goes like this

"yes, I KNOW SA cannot be over ruled by a special rule,
but here is how I get by it, with a special rule with no SA exemption"

That last bit made me LOL! That is EXACTLY how my regular Necron player explained his logic. He tried to even say EL isn't a "special rule", but an "advanced rule" and thus overrides the basic rule of SA. I finally just let it go. There simply is no reasoning with some people.

Since "saved" and "rescued" is not defined in the rulesbook you have to follow the common English terms, which have nothing to do with dying and returning to life. If SA mentioned something like "resurrected", "reanimated" etc then it would prohibit EL models returning to play. As it is it does not.

Its a difference of opinion. I personally don't think Dr. Frankenstein saved any of the people he made his monster out of, nor do I think any of the zombies in the The Walking Dead have been saved by the virus. Once your dead you have not been saved. If you have a way back from death you are still not saved but you are better off the most. I can see how others might disagree.

But I'm done arguing about it. I agree that EL does not allow any models from a unit to be placed back on the table if the unit was destroyed, I just disagree as to the why.

In both if the cases you cited, the original thing isn't saved - it becomes something else.

In 40k, EL saves the original thing and it does not become something else. Perhaps if you understood that you'd get it and stop making false comparisons.

copper.talos wrote:
Since "saved" and "rescued" is not defined in the rulesbook you have to follow the common English terms, which have nothing to do with dying and returning to life. If SA mentioned something like "resurrected", "reanimated" etc then it would prohibit EL models returning to play. As it is it does not.

Really? That's the basis for your argument? So when a doctor resuscitates a patient who has died, that doesn't count as "saving" the patient? When a life guard resuscitates a drowning victim, they didn't "rescue" that person? I find it interesting that you are taking the "fluff" of the EL rule as pure, literal, RAW, but are dismissing the "fluff" of the SA rule.

From a RAI perspective, what is the functional difference between death by SA and death by falling back off the table? Both require a failed morale check, both remove the entire unit as casualties, but only SA says no special rule can bring them back, and yet, falling back off the table has been clarified in the FAQ as NOT allowing EL rolls.

A witch doctor that returns a dead body to life does not save it. He resurrects/reanimates it. Removing a model as a CASUALTY and then returning it to play is by no means "saving" or "rescuing" it.

And regarding the RAI part, a unit falling of the table means it was forced to retreat from the fight. Being destroyed in combat is something completely different. Necrons are meant to be destroyed and then come back, and they are also meant to be able to retreat like any other unit.

copper.talos wrote:
A witch doctor that returns a dead body to life does not save it. He resurrects/reanimates it. Removing a model as a CASUALTY and then returning it to play is by no means "saving" or "rescuing" it.

Bad example, again.
In your example, the thing "returned" is different from the thing that "died". With EL the thing that returns *is* *explicitly* the thing that died.
How many times does this have to be pointed out - in this thread - before you understand that fact?

And regarding the RAI part, a unit falling of the table means it was forced to retreat from the fight. Being destroyed in combat is something completely different. Necrons are meant to be destroyed and then come back, and they are also meant to be able to retreat like any other unit.

It's really not different - at all. You should read what the BRB says about casualties and Sweeping Advance specifically.

I don't see how SA and EL aren't working together. SA says remove from the board as a casualty. The model is removed from the board. EL doesn't save it from the SA, the model/unit is still destroyed and removed from the table. EL only provides you with the chance to bring that unit back on the board after the resolution of the phase, and therefore after the resolution of the SA. SA does not mention removing the counter that is placed as a result of the death of the IC only the model. Both rules have the model removed from the board and it is treated as a casualty in this regard. EL grants you the ability to bring it back from the dead, not prevent it from getting destroyed. EL doesn't have to mention SA anywhere in it's entry, because the roll doesn't occur as a part of SA, and it doesn't prevent the model from being removed. It occurs in a different part of the turn. The model isn't "Saved" the model is brought back onto the board at a different time, the SA still destroys it at that moment, and the SA resolves.

 Bobaram wrote:
I don't see how SA and EL aren't working together. SA says remove from the board as a casualty. The model is removed from the board. EL doesn't save it from the SA, the model/unit is still destroyed and removed from the table. EL only provides you with the chance to bring that unit back on the board after the resolution of the phase, and therefore after the resolution of the SA. SA does not mention removing the counter that is placed as a result of the death of the IC only the model. Both rules have the model removed from the board and it is treated as a casualty in this regard. EL grants you the ability to bring it back from the dead, not prevent it from getting destroyed. EL doesn't have to mention SA anywhere in it's entry, because the roll doesn't occur as a part of SA, and it doesn't prevent the model from being removed. It occurs in a different part of the turn. The model isn't "Saved" the model is brought back onto the board at a different time, the SA still destroys it at that moment, and the SA resolves.

So you also are ignoring that for them the battle is over?
As long as you admit you're ignoring part of a rule that's fine.

The unit/model is demonstrably saved - it ceased to exist and then does again. It's not a different unit/model, it's the same one brought back. How many examples do we need to show that?

A save prevents something from being caused, an armour SAVE prevents a wound. A save PREVENTS something from happening. In this case the model is still removed and counts as destroyed. The EL rule brings it back, it doesn't change the model, true. but it also says that the battle is over for this unit unless a specific rule says otherwise. In this case EL would keep the model's battle from being over, not SAVE it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're using save in the context of language, not in the context of rules stating what a save actually is for the purposes of the game.

I hate to say it, but this is starting to sound like "doors are blown" for drop pods again.

 Bobaram wrote:
A save prevents something from being caused, an armour SAVE prevents a wound. A save PREVENTS something from happening. In this case the model is still removed and counts as destroyed. The EL rule brings it back, it doesn't change the model, true. but it also says that the battle is over for this unit unless a specific rule says otherwise. In this case EL would keep the model's battle from being over, not SAVE it.

And does EL specify that it can save a unit from SA?
Note - ATSKNF does. Look there for the verbiage required.
You're saying EL doesn't prevent the model from being destroyed. So, in a VP game, do you count each destruction as a VP at the end of the game? After all, you destroyed the unit multiple times because EL didn't prevent that from happening.

You're using save in the context of language, not in the context of rules stating what a save actually is for the purposes of the game.

You're assuming you can separate "save" from "armor" and have it still be correct. That's a bad (and incorrect) assumption. We know what Armor/Cover/Invul saves are. Save, by itself, isn't defined in the rules anywhere I've found. Mind enlightening me?

If you want to debate VP go for it, I'm saying that per the wording of BOTH RULES the unit is still removed as a casualty. Neither one says anything about affecting the other rule, and both rules are able to resolve exactly the way they are supposed to.

If you want a section of the rules that specifically points out what a save is look at Maximum Save page 19. It tells you specifically what the saves are, Armor/Invuln/Cover. If you want to argue that you're version and definition of a save is correct and the rules don't define it then fine. Since EL isn't a save, as listed by your definition and comprehension, it completely negates your saved argument since it isn't listed as a save, and therefore can't be saved. So the rule isn't a save, and therefore you can't treat it as such and it completely avoids the verbage in SA because that says that no saves can prevent it, as it isn't save.

If you want to argue special rules from the back half of that sentence then I say this. The rule specifically states that no special rule can rescue the unit AT THIS STAGE. As EL is resolved at the end of the phase, after all combats are resolved then yet again EL is taking place AFTER SA and is not occuring at this stage in the phase. The battle is indeed "over" for them but at the end of the phase they come right back if they succeed on their EL roll.

Side note, sorry for using caps to emphasize, but for some reason advanced reply isn't working properly on my laptop, so I'm using the Quick Reply box for initial posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bah, VP, you count slay the warlord at the end of the game.It says if, at the end of the game, the warlord is slain you score the VP. So if he's alive at the end no VP.
For First blood, it's just the first unit removed as a casualty, with no caveat for brought back or not. So if a unit is brought back, it was still removed as a casualty and therefore you get your VP. So per SA as it was removed as a casualty before it was brought back onto the board at the end of phase you still get the VP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course, for slay the warlord you did in fact slay him at one point, and he was slain during the game. So I would think you'd get the VP at that point as well. You wouldn't get double VP as it only states whether or not he was slain, not a VP per slaying.

 Bobaram wrote:
If you want to debate VP go for it, I'm saying that per the wording of BOTH RULES the unit is still removed as a casualty. Neither one says anything about affecting the other rule, and both rules are able to resolve exactly the way they are supposed to.

Except, you know, the fact that you're ignoring part of SA.

If you want a section of the rules that specifically points out what a save is look at Maximum Save page 19. It tells you specifically what the saves are, Armor/Invuln/Cover. If you want to argue that you're version and definition of a save is correct and the rules don't define it then fine. Since EL isn't a save, as listed by your definition and comprehension, it completely negates your saved argument since it isn't listed as a save, and therefore can't be saved. So the rule isn't a save, and therefore you can't treat it as such and it completely avoids the verbage in SA because that says that no saves can prevent it, as it isn't save.

... no.
Your argument is that the only way save can be defined is as prevention - citing A/I/C. saves as evidence.
The problem is that there is no definition of "save" by itself in the rulebook, so we go with a normal english one.
If I throw you off a cliff, and you grab a rope while falling and climb back up, were you saved?
If I shoot you in the face and the bullet deflects slightly off of a filling, doing no permanent damage on the way out, did the filling save you?

It's almost like you're putting words in my mouth, but I won't accuse you of that - rather I think you're just failing to understand what I'm saying.

If you want to argue special rules from the back half of that sentence then I say this. The rule specifically states that no special rule can rescue the unit AT THIS STAGE. As EL is resolved at the end of the phase, after all combats are resolved then yet again EL is taking place AFTER SA and is not occuring at this stage in the phase. The battle is indeed "over" for them but at the end of the phase they come right back if they succeed on their EL roll.

"At this stage" as a phrase does not mean "only at this point in time". It's close to "From this point forward". Meaning - you're incorrect, again.

I'm not even touching VP, that's a whole new argument for a new day, and I'm just not going near it right now.

Because it completely undermines your viewpoint?
Refusing to address a valid concern doesn't make it go away. Lemme help you out.
Does killing the same EL unit over and over grant multiple Power from Pain tokens?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobaram wrote:
Bah, VP, you count slay the warlord at the end of the game.It says if, at the end of the game, the warlord is slain you score the VP. So if he's alive at the end no VP.
For First blood, it's just the first unit removed as a casualty, with no caveat for brought back or not. So if a unit is brought back, it was still removed as a casualty and therefore you get your VP. So per SA as it was removed as a casualty before it was brought back onto the board at the end of phase you still get the VP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Of course, for slay the warlord you did in fact slay him at one point, and he was slain during the game. So I would think you'd get the VP at that point as well. You wouldn't get double VP as it only states whether or not he was slain, not a VP per slaying.

Of course that's not at all what I was talking about.
How about you reference page 127, the Primary Objective.

copper.talos wrote:
A witch doctor that returns a dead body to life does not save it. He resurrects/reanimates it. Removing a model as a CASUALTY and then returning it to play is by no means "saving" or "rescuing" it.

And regarding the RAI part, a unit falling of the table means it was forced to retreat from the fight. Being destroyed in combat is something completely different. Necrons are meant to be destroyed and then come back, and they are also meant to be able to retreat like any other unit.

I said "functional" difference, as in how they function, so the descriptive part of the rules isn't what I was asking about. I can't help but notice that you are again focusing on the "fluff" of one rule and completely ignoring the other. Read the entire paragraph for Sweeping Advance, it states the unit caught is captured, scattered, or slain, but functionally, the unit is removed as a casualty.

You know what, you're right we're all wrong because we actually read through and posed an argument you don't like because it's right.. Your grasp of the english language is astounding! I bow before you!

But the problem is, you're wrong, as stated in my posts. If we can't use stage or phase or time to mean a specific point in a turn I guess everything in the game all happens at the same time?

And I guess when we spell out the rules word for word and break them down we're all also ignoring the rules themselves? You haven't actually pointed out the parts we're voiding, you just put forth the same argument so I guess that means you win.

And I suppose if we have a bullet pass through our brain and somehow later we stand back up, that counts exactly the same as grabbing a rope? But wait, it isn't, that is in no way the same as grabbing a rope.

And cool, I reference VP from victory conditions because you reference destruction of a unit, and what you MEANT was VP in a specific mission, The Scouring, as it applies and also from the DE Codex because I guess you forgot to mention that? So somehow I was supposed to know that? If you want to use a specific example, use the words or pages. Don't just throw it out there and then say oh, that's not at all what I meant, read this page out of a book hundreds of pages long and grab an entirely other book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope you enjoyed that response, because it's about the same thing you've been giving everyone arguing with you. It's a horrible way to phrase your arguments and gets nowhere and it honestly makes me never want to ask questions or take part in these rules debates because people come in and immediately start doing this to each other. It fosters quite possibly the worst debating environment I have ever seen. I am officially done with this forum except when I am under extreme duress, as all the arguments devolve into one of a small group of people screaming out they are right and passive aggressively calling everyone else an idiot.