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:Fafnir, the argument is as follows:

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

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

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

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

The against side argument is that EL saves the unit from SA when it does not ,it brings them back from death at a later stage after SA has been resolved, you can not bring something back to life unless it was already dead .

They are DEAD,RFPAAC,WIPED OUT NO MORE SA has happened the results have not changed they are dead as per the RAW for SA ,AT the end of the phase now nothing to do with SA at all ,they by means of their special rule (taking place after SA has been done again nothing now to do with SA) are allowed to attempt to return to life (not saving them from death which would mean they never died ).

The WBB rule is gone there is a new codex and new rules the 4th and 5th ED BRB is gone ,there are now new rules anything mentioned to do with the WBB rule or any rule in the 4th and 5th ED are not legal rules, hence no longer RAW .

There is no mention that EL has to mention SA because it does not happen at the same time nor does it stop SA since again the present can not affect the past anyone that say otherwise is talking dribble .

More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

When people are ignoring the definition of "at this stage" that was posted by someone on the pro-EL side I'm not sure why I'm bothering anymore.

Have fun.

Indeed. Apparently context and rules can be ignored when inconvenient.

nosferatu1001 wrote:More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

So telling someone when they say you can affect an event that happened in the past by doing something in the present is dribble is an insult lol you have very soft skin and also that is a fact you cant affect the past in the present

The SA rule is not the same as it now has RFPAAC and we all know the argument re RPF,RFPAAC and REMOVED ,WBB is not the same it is total different and no longer exist as a rule .

Yes i do have rules there in the Necron codex and FAQ under EL, which even if they Affected the past which they cant the codeX always trumps BRB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:When people are ignoring the definition of "at this stage" that was posted by someone on the pro-EL side I'm not sure why I'm bothering anymore.

Have fun.

Yes you are ignoring or choosing you own take on its meaning

At this stage, to mean at this point in an event .
At this stage, to mean right now
At this stage, to me during this part of the event or action
At this stage ,not meaning from now until i say so .

Stage or stages is an abstract object often associated with either theater and scene or point of progress. from the definition in the oxford English dictionary


Also, at this or that stage of the game. At this (that) step, phase, or position in a process or activity, as in I'm not sure if you can help at this stage, but perhaps you can pitch in later, or I don't need an assistant at this stage of the game. The variant uses game in the sense of “a particular process or activity.” .from several online dictionary's

snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

In principle you're right. In practice, EL does not invalidate the execution of SA. It just doesn't make sense to say that EL saves a unit from SA. It's overly simplistic to say, the unit was destroyed and now it's not, thus you've violated the SA rule. That's not how SA works. Save and rescue clause of SA is all about preventing the SA from being executed. Meaning, preventing the destruction of the swept unit.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

Using old rules to justify current rules interpretation doesn't seem like a valid argumentative tactic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

Again, I can't help but think you're being deliberately obtuse. SA and EL are the only rules relevant to this discussion. SA destroys and RFPaaC the affected model unless the unit has a specific rule that prevents this destruction. EL is the rule that lets the swept model return to play. These attempts to solicit rules that don't exist and can't exist given the scenario discussed is a Straw Man to justify your own line of thought.

-Yad

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

wrong you treat the unsaved wound as a saved wound because you get a secnodl chance to save it or ignore it as per FNP

You attempt to save the wound and fail so your model has taken a wound FNP allows you to ignore the effects of this wound ,for FNP to take place you must first fail a wound you don't say that wound you cause never happened, because of FNP, you say i use FNP because that wound happened

FNP takes place after the failed save and therefore cannot stop the wound from happening but rather negate its effect .

If FNP affected the past you would not take the wound and therefore would not use FNP which would mean you didn't fail the save in the first place and that's not how it works

snakel wrote:

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

wrong you treat the unsaved wound as a saved wound because you get a secnodl chance to save it or ignore it as per FNP

You attempt to save the wound and fail so your model has taken a wound FNP allows you to ignore the effects of this wound ,for FNP to take place you must first fail a wound you don't say that wound you cause never happened, because of FNP, you say i use FNP because that wound happened

FNP takes place after the failed save and therefore cannot stop the wound from happening but rather negate its effect .

If FNP affected the past you would not take the wound and therefore would not use FNP which would mean you didn't fail the save in the first place and that's not how it works

Careful here snakel. The actual FNP rule does indeed say that if you succeed at the roll you treat it as having been saved. Yes, in order to trigger FNP you must have an unsaved wound. But again, when you make the FNP roll that unsaved wound is now treated as having been saved. Treating this as a series of linear events it does mean that FNP goes 'back' and stops the wound from being considered an unsaved wound.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:More insults. SHocking.

When the rule is exactly the same, and it specifically mentions that WBB is not allowed as a special rule to save the unit, and WBB worked even later than EL, and your argument is that EL works "after" SA so is allowed, your failure to see the demolition job that does to your argument is telling.

Using old rules to justify current rules interpretation doesn't seem like a valid argumentative tactic.

Shock. Inconvenient when it destroys your errant timing argument isnt it?:

Again: when the rule has not changed since 4th edition ("no special rule" component) and the example special rule (WBB) occured in an entirely new TURN of the game, claiming a timing exemption for EL is a complete faiol as far as an argument goes

Can you even address the point? The rules are *exactly* the same, as regards the special rule requirement. If you continue to lalala the inconvenient facts away your argument remains irrelevant

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still have no rules allowing you to return the unit back to battle. You know, the RULE saying the unit can take no furhter part in the battle?

Again, I can't help but think you're being deliberately obtuse. SA and EL are the only rules relevant to this discussion. SA destroys and RFPaaC the affected model unless the unit has a specific rule that prevents this destruction. EL is the rule that lets the swept model return to play. These attempts to solicit rules that don't exist and can't exist given the scenario discussed is a Straw Man to justify your own line of thought.

-Yad

SA has a rule stating the unit cannot take any further part int he battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.


Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a furhter part in the battle. IT is not obtuse to ask you to provide some actual rules suipport, for the first time this thread.

Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

Yad wrote:

snakel wrote:

Happyjew wrote:snakel, what do you mean the present can't affect the past? Perfect example, FNP. You treat the unsaved wound as saved. Ooh look, something that happened affected something that happened before it happened.

wrong you treat the unsaved wound as a saved wound because you get a secnodl chance to save it or ignore it as per FNP

You attempt to save the wound and fail so your model has taken a wound FNP allows you to ignore the effects of this wound ,for FNP to take place you must first fail a wound you don't say that wound you cause never happened, because of FNP, you say i use FNP because that wound happened

FNP takes place after the failed save and therefore cannot stop the wound from happening but rather negate its effect .

If FNP affected the past you would not take the wound and therefore would not use FNP which would mean you didn't fail the save in the first place and that's not how it works

Careful here snakel. The actual FNP rule does indeed say that if you succeed at the roll you treat it as having been saved. Yes, in order to trigger FNP you must have an unsaved wound. But again, when you make the FNP roll that unsaved wound is now treated as having been saved. Treating this as a series of linear events it does mean that FNP goes 'back' and stops the wound from being considered an unsaved wound.

-Yad

I hear you but i still don't see how that changes the past for FNP to come into effect you still need to have an unsaved wound. and that wound is not stopped from happening at the point of taking it. Once you fail you get a second chance to save it with FNP without that wound having happened you would not use FNP .

FNP if passed negates the effect of that wound but the wound still happened and that is in the past, FNP is in the present and changes the state of an unsaved wound to a save wound ,if it changed the past then the wound would not have been unsaved and FNP would not be allowed or needed

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

...from the SA itself.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

And we agree that no special rule can save the unit at this stage and nothing does, they are RFPAAC and then we move on to consolidation the next stage ,step ,sub phase once thats done and if there are no more combats the assault phase comes to an end but wait at the end of each phase IE moving ,shooting and assault any Necrons RFPAAC that meet the requirements of RP and EL as stated by the Necron codex and FAQ get to attempt to reanimate .

As you keep saying we are ignoring your interpretation, its clear i can say the same, you refuse to accept the definition of stage and at this stage, i have posted which is dictionary English
You refuse to accept that the unit has been RFPAAC and SA has been concluded .
You continually say that the Necron special rule invalidates SA when SA is and action the death of the unit is a result .

And yes it is a good thing that SA talks about special rules and their ability to save units from SA but in this instance we are not !!! we are talking about what happens after SA has bee Resolved and that stage of the assault sub phase has ended without any rule having been broken

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

...from the SA itself.

-Yad

Yes, and for them, the battle is over.

so no coming back.

So for them the battle ISNT over?

Guess you keep ignoring the rules that disagree with you.

Great argument

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the summary. All I saw was post after post arguing timing.

Here's my take: Things Change. We have a new Necron Codex operating under a new edition. You cannot take an outdated FAQ commenting on an outdated rule and assume a similar result. GW does reverse opinions (hiding in boxes from Shadow in the Warp, for example) and new writers bring a new spin to things.
So please do not bring in old baggage when discussing how new rules interact. Read exactly what the rules say and follow them.

Which is where I'm at. I'm a new player reading exactly what the rules say. SA removes as casualties and says the units can only be saved where otherwise specified. EL is an example of something specifying to do otherwise. This is RAW. Maybe GW doesn't intend for them to interact that way, but there is no way for anyone playing by RAW to do otherwise. I am not allowed to not place an EL token. I am told to do so by the rules. Nothing in SA allows me to not place an EL token and roll for it. To play otherwise is to ignore RAW and stretch RAI to a fanatical level.

So, until a FAQ comes out that tells me do to otherwise, I have to play out EL as written. I cannot rely on old editions and old FAQ's because they, effectively, no longer exist. Neither should anyone else. Rules change. Play by what's current.

No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

Fafnir, no one is using an outdated FAQ for an outdated codex in an outdated rulebook.

In 4th edition the rule for Sweeping Advance specifically calls out WBB as a special rule that saves the unit. That is why in 4th edition it could not be used.

In 5th edition the only thing that changed in the Sweeping Advance was they no longer included WBB as an example.

In 6th edition, the only change was adding that now the unit was removed as casualties.

However, EL, like WBB is a special rule that saves the unit.

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

EL would save the unit, therefore has to specifically state that it operates otherwise it does not do so, and rolling for EL is breaking a rule -which is cheating
EL would allow the unit to continue the battle, when for them the battle is over; meaning you have broken the SA rule - which is cheating

So there are two rules you have to overcome to roll for EL - now find the line where SA is specified in the EL rule, and you are good to go. Cant? Then youre not.

This is what it boils down to - EL *IS* a special rule that WOULD save the unit, therefore in order to operate it MUST specify that it works to allow the unit to return from Sweeping Advance.

DeathReaper wrote:

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grey Knecrons wrote:Have any of you read the FAQ? Even if the WHOLE UNIT is wiped out, the model with EL still gets to come back. The rest of the unit is lost though. When he is removed as a casualty, which is the same wording as SA, put an EL marker down for him.

Have you read this thread? We're aware of the FAQ. Good thing the SA rule talks about special rules and their ability to save the unit.....

...from the SA itself.

-Yad

Yes, and for them, the battle is over.

so no coming back.

"; for them the battle is over" == fluff. Even if you could somehow justify this as an actual rule, it is only used in reference to the act of destroying and RFPaaC the affected unit. It does not mean you can't use EL.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

EL would save the unit, therefore has to specifically state that it operates otherwise it does not do so, and rolling for EL is breaking a rule -which is cheating
EL would allow the unit to continue the battle, when for them the battle is over; meaning you have broken the SA rule - which is cheating

So there are two rules you have to overcome to roll for EL - now find the line where SA is specified in the EL rule, and you are good to go. Cant? Then youre not.

EL says nothing about SA as it cant stop it nor does it, you cant stop a train hitting a car on the tracks after its already hit it

nosferatu1001 wrote:This is what it boils down to - EL *IS* a special rule that WOULD save the unit, therefore in order to operate it MUST specify that it works to allow the unit to return from Sweeping Advance.

Nope EL does not save the unit from SA, SA happens the unit is RFPAAC they are wiped out, killed ,destroyed ,El takes place after SA has concluded and all rules for it have been satisfied EL does not save them from SA as that has already taken place EL brings them back from death not SA .

SA is an action that causes death for the unit swept ,death is not SA so coming back from death is nothing to do with SA

SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

nosferatu1001 wrote:So for them the battle ISNT over?

Guess you keep ignoring the rules that disagree with you.

Great argument

As stated earlier, what you are referring to is fluff. And yes, for the unit that is swept and has to specific rule to stop the sweep as required by the SA rule; for them the battle is over. That does not mean you can't roll for EL. What you fail to grasp is that the restrictions placed by the SA rule on avoiding being swept are only concerned about stopping the sweep from occurring. EL doesn't do this.

It's not a matter of ignoring rules, it's a matter of certain lack of flexibility of thought on your part.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

Fluff. That bit is descriptive language used to add a sense of finality to the act of being caught in a SA (i.e., the destruction and RFPaaC).

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is NOT RAW. You need a rule specifying otherwise for SA - read ATSKNF. THAT is what is meant by "specify" - it HAS to mention SA otherwise it is NOT specifying!

Playing EL as written means that rolling and returning a unit to the battle is CHEATING.

But ATSKNF stops the SA, that unit is saved from being overrun. El doesn't stop them being overrun, it allows them to come back later. Nobody is saying that EL prevents an SA, similarly EL doesn't prevent wounds being allocated and resolved. Like this debate the two rules don't really intersect.
Accusations of cheating are hardly called for.

EL would save the unit, therefore has to specifically state that it operates otherwise it does not do so, and rolling for EL is breaking a rule -which is cheating
EL would allow the unit to continue the battle, when for them the battle is over; meaning you have broken the SA rule - which is cheating

So there are two rules you have to overcome to roll for EL - now find the line where SA is specified in the EL rule, and you are good to go. Cant? Then youre not.

This is what it boils down to - EL *IS* a special rule that WOULD save the unit, therefore in order to operate it MUST specify that it works to allow the unit to return from Sweeping Advance.

Nope. EL does not 'save' or 'rescue' the unit that is swept. To do so would require a special rule, like ATSKNF, which would stop the sweep from happening. Retroactively applying the results of EL to say that is saves the unit is weak sauce at best.

-Yad

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

In general a model can take no further part in the battle and is dead when it's wounds are reduced to 0, see page 2 for how this affects their battle worthiness.
I think coming back from RFPaaC such as with EL or whatever st celestine has is a rule that says you can take futher part in a battle but only at that stage. You may be RFPaaC again.

liturgies of blood wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:SA has a rule stating the unit can not take any further part in the battle, unless the special rule specifically says otherwise.

Cite a rule specifically stating you can take a further part in the battle. (You can not do this, as there is no such rule)

In general a model can take no further part in the battle and is dead when it's wounds are reduced to 0, see page 2 for how this affects their battle worthiness.
I think coming back from RFPaaC such as with EL or whatever st celestine has is a rule that says you can take futher part in a battle but only at that stage. You may be RFPaaC again.

Does EL, as a special rule, "specifically say otherwise"?

(Hint. the answer is no it does not specifically say otherwise).

If the intention of the Ever Living rule was for the model to die by SA (with the possibility of coming back) would it "specify" in the wording exactly like ATSKNF?
No, because if it did, then the effect would be that the unit doesn't die from SA and they stay in combat - like ATSKNF.

There is a certain amount of dishonesty in the argument for EL being required to "specify" like ATSKNF. Nobody is actually saying the rule should work like that.
We all agree SA kills the entire unit which is why you can't compare EL to ATSKNF. "Specifying" is a solution to allowing an action that nobody wants.

The only real dispute here is - timing. Sweeping advance sets a time limit to it's effect - at this stage.

If you think "at this stage" means the rest of the game turn then I see where the confusion is. As I understand the phrase "at this stage" to mean immediately during this Sweeping Advance action in this combat.

Since Sweeping Advance happens before consolidation. It's not the same "stage" of the game anymore as the "end of phase" when Ever Living rolls are made.

Again, can we leave 4th and 5th edition rules out of this? This forum is for Rules As Written. If you need to read a 4th or 5th edition rule (WBB) to try to grasp how this works in 6th then you will certainly get it wrong.

ND, why should it matter if we look at the 4th ed codex, when the part of the rule under dispute is written exactly the same?