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.

snakel wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Yad wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Xzerios you are placing a token, with a special rule during SA. The SA rule says you may not use special rules to save the unit. Since you guys are agreeing that EL saves the unit/model, you cannot place the token without applicable rule allowing, which has to mention SA. To gloss over this, as all of you have the times I have brought it to your attention is funny. The last post I made was the begining of page 8, now we are on page 10 and no one, NO ONE on the side that EL works has even remotely addressed what I have said is a problem. Futhermore, a general permisson is not a specific permisson. You may not place the token "at this stage" because no special rules may be used "unless otherwise specified." You placing that token is using a special rule without a specific statement in the EL rule that it works while SA is happening. Do not put the cart before the horse.....

I'm certainly not agreeing that EL saves the unit from a successful SA roll. Nothing, aside form ATSKNF, can do that. As to your post back on page 8, I'm seeing and kind of revelation there. Simply follow the rules. One player rolls for SA and succeeds. The swept unit is RFPaaC. This in turn requires the 'cron player to place 1 or more EL tokens. SA is complete. Opponent consolidates. 'Cron player is then required to roll for EL and place (given the restrictions in the EL rule) the models that are returned to play.

If you're still stuck on the argument that I and like-minded folks have been making between pages 8 and 10 then I'd suggest you try again. Your points have been well discussed.

-Yad

Yad are you saying that you are allowed to place the EL token during SA? Yes or no, with a reason please, so I can fully understand what rules you are following.

Your argument re the token is as relevant as saying i can t place a flower on the board after a sweeping advance

The token is not a SPECIAL RULE

The token does not stop SA

The token is placed after you have performed a successful SA it in no way Stops SA from taking place !!!!

The token is placed after a model/unit is RFPAAC which cant happen if SA has not already happened .I.E not during an SA ,again you believe SA is ongoing show me as you all like to say anything to prove this while the pro side has shown RAW my means of after a successful SA you consolidate which is the next step or sub phase of the assault phase ,if SA had been stopped or not finished ,/concluded you would not by allowed by RAW to move on and consolidate

I have re posted this same thing because you have chosen to ignore it, and have yet to show me any rule or cite anything that states the Token is anything other than a marker to show at the end of the phase which Necrons are eligible to attempt to reanimate .

Actually snakel, I am trying to get you to say that you are using a special rule, while, and after the SA happened. When you place the token the SA has happened. You saying that you place the token afterwords is using a special rule "at this stage." So please show me where you are specifically allowed to place the token. By the way this arguement is in fact pertinent to the conversation, because as your side has taken to trying to discuss this as a timing issue, this is the same line of reasoning. You are not stopping the SA from happening, true, but you are using a special rule that is invoked by the SA, without permission to do so, and then trying to use that to bring back the model/unit. At the point of you removing the models from play you need to show that you can, specifically, place the token in regards to the result of SA.

The rules from the fourth edition BRB may be written the same. However, the rules for Everliving and We'll Be Back are different, difference starts with the name.


Sweeping Advances folks. I understand your argument, I would play my games the same way. The intentions of the rules are clear that the unit is not allowed to come back. However, on the account of a just plain bad attempt to get this point across, they left this small loophole. Being that the way that the rule is written is that no special rule may prevent the Sweeping Advance from occurring unless that rule is ATSKNF.

In this case, this special rule does not prevent your Sweeping Advance from occurring. It kills the unit and it stays dead for the duration of the rule. It isnt until the end of the phase that the model roles for its special rule to get back up.

Happyjew wrote: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?

WBB is not anything like Ever-Living. WBB - the models stayed on the table and the unit was considered still in play. Ever-Living the model is out of play and only a reminder counter remains.

In 4th and 5th SA did not say "Removed From Play as a Casualty". Now SA says RFPaaC. Do you remember half the argument against EL working after SA in 5th was because EL says "RFPaaC" (and RPF) but SA just said the unit was destroyed?

Now in 6th they added RFPaaC to SA which makes this clearer. SA says RFPaac and look at the Necron Codex - it says when a model with Ever Living is RFPaaC what you should do.

Because none of the rules are written exactly the same.

Nemesor Dave wrote: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.

No, this is a huge fallacy and a ridiculous claim. Space Marines don't die in a SA because the rule says they do not. The EL rule could very easily have said "The character can make an Ever-Living roll even if the unit is caught in a Sweeping Advance." In that rule it specifies that the roll can be made after a SA, and the unit still gets chopped to pieces in the event of a SA. But it doesn't specify that the unit can be saved in a SA, so they cannot.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote: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.

No, this is a huge fallacy and a ridiculous claim. Space Marines don't die in a SA because the rule says they do not. The EL rule could very easily have said "The character can make an Ever-Living roll even if the unit is caught in a Sweeping Advance." In that rule it specifies that the roll can be made after a SA, and the unit still gets chopped to pieces in the event of a SA. But it doesn't specify that the unit can be saved in a SA, so they cannot.

EL doesn't need to explain every single rule interaction in the game. It tells you what to do when a model is Removed as a Casualty. Lucky for us we now know SA removes a model As a Casualty. The combat winning unit cannot continue to do Sweeping Advance after combat is over and they are 1" or more away from the model with EL. SA is an action done by a unit. SA does not make the unit God.

If SA was a permanent effect it would say "for them the battle is over" fullstop. It wouldn't say "at this stage". Here we are back at the timing argument.

It doesn't have to explain every single interaction in the game, just the ones that require it. Like SA which says it must specify it or it doesn't work.

So then you are saying that SA is not a permanent effect so I can place my unit back on the board after they fall to one? Good to know, I will keep that in mind.

Captain Antivas wrote:It doesn't have to explain every single interaction in the game, just the ones that require it. Like SA which says it must specify it or it doesn't work.

So then you are saying that SA is not a permanent effect so I can place my unit back on the board after they fall to one? Good to know, I will keep that in mind.

SA says that the target unit is going to die unless some special rule says they don't - like ASTKNF. EL doesn't stop this, hence my post saying it's irrelevant.

That's not why you can't put your models back. You can't put them back because they died. EL models have a special rule that allows them to come back after they died. Clear?

Yad wrote:

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.

No, it is a clear directive you MUST follow. You have decided it is fluff without any reason for doing so

You are also ignoring the CONTEXT of "at this stage" - "for them the battle is over" TELLS YOU the context quite, quite clearly, yet you STILL ignore it

Stop pretending rules are not rules because it destroys your argument, its very, very childish

Yad wrote: 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.

What you are failing to grasp is that this is not the context of the rule, at all. The context of the rule is that a swept unit cannot continue in hte battle UNLESS the rule specifically states otherwise

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

-Yad

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Actually snakel, I am trying to get you to say that you are using a special rule, while, and after the SA happened. When you place the token the SA has happened. You saying that you place the token afterwords is using a special rule "at this stage." So please show me where you are specifically allowed to place the token. By the way this arguement is in fact pertinent to the conversation, because as your side has taken to trying to discuss this as a timing issue, this is the same line of reasoning. You are not stopping the SA from happening, true, but you are using a special rule that is invoked by the SA, without permission to do so, and then trying to use that to bring back the model/unit. At the point of you removing the models from play you need to show that you can, specifically, place the token in regards to the result of SA.

The special rule is invoked by being RFPAAC not the action of SA .RFPAAC is the resulting effect of SA , failing a save is an action and losing your final wound and being RFPAAC are the result of that action ,SA and RFPAAC are not the same if they where every model RFPAAC would have to have been swept as well


Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Actually snakel, I am trying to get you to say that you are using a special rule, while, and after the SA happened. When you place the token the SA has happened. You saying that you place the token afterwords is using a special rule "at this stage." So please show me where you are specifically allowed to place the token. By the way this arguement is in fact pertinent to the conversation, because as your side has taken to trying to discuss this as a timing issue, this is the same line of reasoning. You are not stopping the SA from happening, true, but you are using a special rule that is invoked by the SA, without permission to do so, and then trying to use that to bring back the model/unit. At the point of you removing the models from play you need to show that you can, specifically, place the token in regards to the result of SA.

The special rule is invoked by being RFPAAC not the action of SA .RFPAAC is the resulting effect of SA , failing a save is an action and losing your final wound and being RFPAAC are the result of that action ,SA and RFPAAC are not the same if they where every model RFPAAC would have to have been swept as well


Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

.



So the placement of the token for EL, is not a part of the special rule???? Funny because you cannot roll for EL/RP without the token, and EL/RP tell you that when a model is Rfpaac to place a token. SO, this is not part of the EL/RP rules? Funny, then what has everyone been saying about placing tokens and what not.

In SA, you RFPAAC, at this stage, single point in time, you cannot save the unit with a save or a special rule. You are attempting to place a token using a special rule without permission. For them the battle is over, no matter how many times you wish it to be fluff is not fluff. Here is the fluff from the surronding sentences. "We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwisesent packing so demoralised that they won't return: it's members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding." That right there is fluff, but coincidentily it also tells you what the writers were thinking and how they want you to play it.....

Addtionally, I am not saying SA and RFPAAC is the same thing, that is what you think I am saying, when in fact RFPAAC is a part of the SA rule. Futhermore, if the action of SA is not to RFPAAC a unit that is in CC then what is the action of SA????

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

Oh dear.

snakel wrote:I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

Wrong. You have been proven wrong on every count.

snakel wrote:You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

Wrong, as you already gave "at this stage" can have a number of meaning, but IN CONTEXt only has a single one - no matter what you try to lie about otherwise. Apparently as far as you are concerned "battle" is equivalent to "just this part of the fight sub phase, honest!!!!!!"

snakel wrote:You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

It saves them from being unable to take any further part in the battle, which is a condition of Sweeping Advance. Odd that you dont think that. Its very very clearly written.

snakel wrote:You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

Sorry, not a clue what youre attempting to claim there. I'd suggest taking a deep breath, calming down and trying again, as youre not making any sense there. When youre claiming other people are saying things quotes are helpful as well.

snakel wrote:So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU

Yep, you still havent managed a single rule.

snakel wrote:
Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

How are you placing the token, APART from using the special rule? Remember your game basics - the game is permissive. So where are you gaining permission from, APART FROM a special rule?

I'm gonna love how you try to wiggle out of admitting you have used a special rule this time.

snakel wrote:Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

Incorrect. I suggesty ou havent actually read EL or RP, otherwise you would no the above is patently false and another lie.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

So the placement of the token for EL, is not a part of the special rule???? Funny because you cannot roll for EL/RP without the token, and EL/RP tell you that when a model is Rfpaac to place a token. SO, this is not part of the EL/RP rules? Funny, then what has everyone been saying about placing tokens and what not.

In SA, you RFPAAC, at this stage, single point in time, you cannot save the unit with a save or a special rule. You are attempting to place a token using a special rule without permission. For them the battle is over, no matter how many times you wish it to be fluff is not fluff. Here is the fluff from the surronding sentences. "We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or otherwisesent packing so demoralised that they won't return: it's members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding." That right there is fluff, but coincidentily it also tells you what the writers were thinking and how they want you to play it.....

What part of SA prevents you from putting down a token? Not a word. Putting down a token as required by EL is not saving or rescuing a unit.

"For them the battle is over". If this isn't fluff, show me the battle. I only see some models on a table. Necrons who are dead, wounded, ripped apart, and demoralized love coming back to battle. Especially ones like Crypteks (who have the Ever Living rule). It's fluff.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

It is a clear matter of ignoring rules that you find inconvenient, and it is getting tiring pointing this out to you. Stop ignoring rules, admit you are wrong and move on.

Right back at you

Oh dear.

snakel wrote:I an the pro EL side Have show you RAW you chose to say context as you interpret it, is RAW which is False

Wrong. You have been proven wrong on every count.

snakel wrote:You use for them the battle is over and at this stage when i have show the English dictionary meaning of at this stage to mean contrary what you say it means ,which in turn gives the correct contextual meaning of for them the battle is over .

Wrong, as you already gave "at this stage" can have a number of meaning, but IN CONTEXt only has a single one - no matter what you try to lie about otherwise. Apparently as far as you are concerned "battle" is equivalent to "just this part of the fight sub phase, honest!!!!!!"

snakel wrote:You insist the EL rule Saves a unit from something that has already happened .

It saves them from being unable to take any further part in the battle, which is a condition of Sweeping Advance. Odd that you dont think that. Its very very clearly written.

snakel wrote:You insist RFPAAC ,death,RFP ,destoyed and wiped out are SA yet they are not SA is an action that has the result when not stopped of RFPAAC,death, RFP,destroyed and wiped out .

Sorry, not a clue what youre attempting to claim there. I'd suggest taking a deep breath, calming down and trying again, as youre not making any sense there. When youre claiming other people are saying things quotes are helpful as well.

snakel wrote:So as i said RIGHT BACK AT YOU

Yep, you still havent managed a single rule.

snakel wrote:
Placing a token is not a special rule the special rule takes place and is rolled of at the end of the phase .

How are you placing the token, APART from using the special rule? Remember your game basics - the game is permissive. So where are you gaining permission from, APART FROM a special rule?

I'm gonna love how you try to wiggle out of admitting you have used a special rule this time.

snakel wrote:Tokens are to keep track of models that have been RFPAAC ,at the end of the phase all tokens that meet the requirements of EL/RP are then rolled for using a special rule .

Incorrect. I suggesty ou havent actually read EL or RP, otherwise you would no the above is patently false and another lie.

No need to wriggle out of anything its plain you cant see RAW or comprehend what at this stage means or that a token is not a special rule but a marker to keep track of models RFPAAC ,to allow a special rule to be used at a later stage

and if RFPAAC is part of SA then any time i use RFPAAC In the game i have performed a SA

So any model losing its final wound that is RFPAAC has been swept ?

And thank you for the insults,(calling me a liar )have you lost the argument now?

SA doesn't prevent you from taking further part in a battle. It removes you as RFPAAC. If it said RFP and cannot return that would be a different story.

snakel, I may have lost the argument, but you my friend, have lost the GAME.

Happyjew wrote:snakel, I may have lost the argument, but you my friend, have lost the GAME.

I am sorry i didn't know you and nosferatu1001 were the same person as my reply and comment re losing the argument ,was aimed at his early statement to the same effect

but curiosity dictates i must ask what game have i lost ,i don't play till later tonight ,so unless you know something i don't know

Snakel - so, really, you are claiming that Placing the EL token is NOT part of the EL / RP special rule?

Really?

Hint. Second sentence of page 29, under R.P.

The special rule RP

where it says you place tokens

The special rule, where it says you place tokens.

So, presumably you cannot now wriggle even more, and must admit that you DO use a special rule to place the tokens?

ND - the game you are playing is referred to as the battle. You know the phrase battle brothers? They use it a lot.

Well I think this thread has pretty much gone nowhere. It should probably die until a FAQ comes out. I would check with your local TO before you play first though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Snakel - so, really, you are claiming that Placing the EL token is NOT part of the EL / RP special rule?

Really?

Hint. Second sentence of page 29, under R.P., says you are lying, or you are simply unable to comprehend that everything under the R.P / E.L. headings are part of the Special Rules.

Which is it?

ND - the game you are playing is referred to as the battle. You know the phrase battle brothers? They use it a lot.

Where does SA prevent you from placing a counter?

1. SA removes model with EL as a casualty.
2. EL rule says you must place a counter.

Where is the conflict? This is why I can hardly be bothered to follow anything you've written this entire thread. You mention 4th and 5th edition rules over and over again. Now dragging Snakel through a whole discussion about placing the counter which he'll try to defend when you know VERY WELL that SA doesn't stop you from placing an EL counter.

In fact you claim the proper way to play according to your interpretation of the rules is
1. SA kills the unit - remove the unit.
2. Model was RFPaaC so place a counter.
3. Roll for EL
5. Regardless of success, pick up your EL token and model.

Here you are quite content to have a whole discussion about placing the EL counter without any justification as to why you would say you can't place a counter.

No special rule can save the unit

EL is a special rule
EL allows you to place a token that, if rolled for, would save the unit. Note, before you get all excited again, this is not "S"ave with a capital S, butthe colloquial use of it by GW.

You can place the counter, but have no permisison to place the model as this breaks SA.

AS you know full well, but apparently keep ignoring.

Carry on, you have yet to post anything approaching rules.

I read it as needing a special rule to save you from being destroyed, not from sweeping advance. Which necrons have. It says they are destroyed unless a special rule prevents it. I assume the special rule is referencing the previous line stating they are destroyed, not the name of the rule itself. I feel that because ATSKNF specifically references SA that it has become a requirement to mention SA in some peoples minds where no where in the rule does it say it must protect you from SA, just from destroyed.

It says you need a special rule specifying that it works against Sweeping Advance. Context.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It says you need a special rule specifying that it works against Sweeping Advance. Context.

Correct and EL does not work against SA we have all agreed on this since it does not stop the SA from taking place

I wont bother defending the token placement since there is no point even if the BRB writers and Matt ward came out publicly to say it works some people would argue with them that it does not .

The people i play and the people they play use the rule as i do and believe that is RAW ,every other forum i have used sees it the same as me, so what a few people on Dakka think is irrelevant and and frankly just funny .

I believe i am right and since the majority of people and the people i play agree with me that's all that matters ,

retort all you want after reading everything some have posted it will only serve to make me smile

P.S to save you time i will post a good retort for you

"The majority of people and the people you play using the rule as you see it does not make it right or RAW " feel free to insert your name with this retort

It doesn't rescue the unit from Sweeping Advancw, it just returns the unit to the board after a Sweeping Advance has destroyed them to the point that they can't be rescued unless otherwise specified.

Is that essentially it?

... How is that not rescuing the unit again?

rigeld2 wrote:It doesn't rescue the unit from Sweeping Advancw, it just returns the unit to the board after a Sweeping Advance has destroyed them to the point that they can't be rescued unless otherwise specified.

Is that essentially it?

... How is that not rescuing the unit again?

I'll explain. Using a diagram.

1. Unit of marines (M) is in combat with some necrons (N) and a cryptek with EL (C).
BRB P. 26 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make Sweeping Advance." Notice the victors are the ones making the SA.
So the Necrons lose combat and fail morale, and flee. Marines win the rolloff.

MMM
NCN

2. BRB p. 27 "The destroyed unit is
immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise
specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit
at this stage; for them the battle is over."
Necron Codex p.29 "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty,
do not add a RP counter to its unit. Instead place a EL counter where the model was removed from play."
Nobody is getting saved or rescued here. If you don't place a counter (E) YOU HAVE BROKEN A RULE.

MMM
E

3. BRB p. 27 "At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either
destroyed or falling back or the end of combat Pile In was
insufficient, so that the units are no longer locked in combat
with each other, they may Consolidate."
Is the victor making Sweeping Advance at this time? NO. Marines are consolidating at the end of combat.

MMM E

4. Necron Codex p. 29 "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter just as you would
for a reanimation counter."
Roll and place the cryptek (C) with EL within 3" of the counter and more than 1" from any enemies.

MMM C

Are these marines still making a Sweeping Advance right now? NO.
Is there any rule that lets you kill the Crypek now? NO.
Are any marines close enough to harm the cryptek? NO.
The RAW are quite clear now.

Snakel- so, you concede yiu were using a special ruke to place the token?

Or are you just ignoring that you were, again wrong on this?

Great fallacy again, btw, appeal to ajthority and "na na im right i cant hear you" . Silly me, I thought we were discussing rules....

Ignored as, frankly irrelevant

ND - again with the selective highlighting. Apparently "at this stage", meaning "from this point on" using that marvellous tool of the English language called context, and "for them the battle is over" can just be ignored ?

The raw is very,very clear - you're just still choosing to ignore it

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - again with the selective highlighting. Apparently "at this stage", meaning "from this point on" using that marvellous tool of the English language called context, and "for them the battle is over" can just be ignored ?

The raw is very,very clear - you're just still choosing to ignore it

We could say the same for you. Rescue a unit requires preventing the SA, does EL prevent SA? No it allows it to fully resolve.
You have hung your hat on an obtuse reading of that line of text, it is your opinion not fact. Stop acting as if you have the monopoly on 40k wisdom.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - again with the selective highlighting. Apparently "at this stage", meaning "from this point on" using that marvellous tool of the English language called context, and "for them the battle is over" can just be ignored ?

The raw is very,very clear - you're just still choosing to ignore it

So you're down to the last leg of your argument.

I have demonstrated clearly that SA is an action performed by the victors (BRB p.26). The unit is "making a Sweeping Advance". When the winning unit has killed all the Necrons SA is done, there's nothing left to do. Are they Sweeping Advancing the air now?

Then there is Consolidation. I don't see a section after Consolidation that says "Second Sweeping Advance" do you?

Where is the proof that the Victorious unit is still "making a Sweeping Advance" after combat? Nice try, but you won't find it. It's ridiculous to say that the unit is still "making a Sweeping Advance" after combat resolution. If you can make a Sweeping Advance after Consolidation, why not keep making Consolidations too?

I have an idea, why don't you tell me again all about "no special rule can save you at this stage" and tell me exactly which unit is still "making a Sweeping Advance" at the end of the phase.

No, just tired of repeating every other part of the argument you keep ignoring. Its quicker to point out your fallacies as you post them.

You don't have any argument that negates the persistent "for them the battle is over" directive, and the special rule doesn't have the necessary language to support your idea. Continue with your argument that leaves out rules if you wish, it isn't exactly convincing as it stands however, so a different tack, one showing you aren't ignoring rules, could be a good idea

Liturgies - obtuse to use the correct, no choice in the matter context of two phrases? Or is it obtuse to point out when one posters entire argumen, one of timing, has been moot for 9 YEARS? surely not as obtuse as consistently refusing to acknowledge a very straight forward and simple fact, instead hiding behind "wah, 4th ed!" While ignoring the fact the rule has not altered one jot in those editions?

nosferatu1001 wrote: Or is it obtuse to point out when one posters entire argumen, one of timing, has been moot for 9 YEARS? surely not as obtuse as consistently refusing to acknowledge a very straight forward and simple fact, instead hiding behind "wah, 4th ed!" While ignoring the fact the rule has not altered one jot in those editions?

I don't believe you have a 6th edition rulebook or current Necron Codex. You keep stating the rule has not changed a single letter so you must be still reading your 4th edition books. Now it all makes sense.

So you've been playing 6th edition for 9 years. ??? Keep up the good work.