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.

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

And again, please quote the words that specify (I quoted the definition, remember it) otherwise to what the SA rule states.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So is it a new unit that is put on the table? Yes or no - simple question.

I don't know if a model that returns from Ever Living constitutes a new unit, or an old unit brought back from the grave. It is immaterial to the conversation, unless you are talking about Kill Points now.

The 'Everliving' rule clearly uses the term 'returned to play'. How can you 'return to play' a model that wasn't in play to begin with? You can't. It is the same model that was removed from play by the Sweeping Advance. Its not immaterial to the discussion as there is nothing that states that you can't 'save' a unit after it has been removed as a casualty. If it is back on the board taking an active part in the game then it does qualify as being saved.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

Forget the fluff...the only thing that matters here is "removed from the game as a casulaty". This is the specific RAW trigger to lay down an Ever Living counter.

So another rule - rescue - is fluff now? Exactly how many rules will you remove until you get your intended result?

 jasper76 wrote:
The Space Marine example is not relevant, as the Space Marine example is not a global rule.

So, but thankfully we are back to the interesting point here.

"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

I cannot answer that unless you read the Space Marine "They shall know no Fear" special rule, or someone here is kind enough to quote it.

That rule specifies exactly how Space Marine can actually survive a Sweeping Advance.

No other model (trust me i play Saint Celestine) can ever survive being Swept but Space Marine - Because they have a rule that says so - Necrons don't unfortunately.

 milkboy wrote:
Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

Once again, you are the font of wisdom. I said I would give others the last word, and now I mean it.

A bit of parting advice to my debate opponents...you won't find many, if any, Necron players that share your opinion on whether a character gets Ever Living after a Sweeping Advance. If you want to press the issue, bring all your rules and FAQs, and be prepared to rehash this same exact debate over and over again. At best, you may get someone to roll off on the question after a long while of probably unpleasant conversation.

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

no where in what you posted was this true
If i die from a sudden heart attack , because i eat 4 corn dogs a day , and the doctors say indeed that i died , but they use the paddles and zap my heart back to functioning , did i die ? did i get rescued from having the heart attack ? did i get rescued form death ? no i didn't because i still had the heart attack . I wasn't rescued from death either ,i had the heart attack and was pronounced dead .
BTW real world or fictional examples like these are poor examples at best , they may go over better if you labled each part with actual RaW

If you ask Rick Grimes, he'll tell you bringing you back from the dead is not really saving you.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

And again, please quote the words that specify (I quoted the definition, remember it) otherwise to what the SA rule states.

SA removes a unit from play as a casualty. When a model with EL is removed as a casualty, that is a specific trigger to lay down an the Ever Living counter.

It's all right there, and we've been over this. SA section does NOT say "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance".

Unless you can find a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance..." then your argument holds no weight with this guy.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

Forget the fluff...the only thing that matters here is "removed from the game as a casulaty". This is the specific RAW trigger to lay down an Ever Living counter.

Sure, if you ignore the rest of the rule.
Figured out an answer to my question yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified" means "Unless otherwise specified". If you can point me to a rule (not an example, but an actual rule) that changes the meaning of this common phrase, I'll look at it with a very open mind. Until then, (a) Ever Living rule in the Necron Codex and (b) Ever Living FAQ serve as completely valid examples of "otherwise specified".

And again, please quote the words that specify (I quoted the definition, remember it) otherwise to what the SA rule states.

SA removes a unit from play as a casualty. When a model with EL is removed as a casualty, that is a specific trigger to lay down an the Ever Living counter.

It's all right there, and we've been over this. SA section does NOT say "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance".

Unless you can find a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that specifically uses the words Sweeping Advance..." then your argument holds no weight with this guy.

So you're ignoring what specify means?
"identify clearly and definitely."
It's obvious that it's not clearly and definitely identified. So it's not specifically stated otherwise.
If only there was another rule that does clearly identify it works to sa-

p33 wrote:If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat instead.

Holy smokes! There's one! It specifically talks about SA.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

no where in what you posted was this true
If i die from a sudden heart attack , because i eat 4 corn dogs a day , and the doctors say indeed that i died , but they use the paddles and zap my heart back to functioning , did i die ? did i get rescued from having the heart attack ? did i get rescued form death ? no i didn't because i still had the heart attack . I wasn't rescued from death either ,i had the heart attack and was pronounced dead .
BTW real world or fictional examples like these are poor examples at best , they may go over better if you labled each part with actual RaW

Three flowers in a field will define how the 2 clouds will never touch the ground, i agree!

On a more serious note, Ever-Living uses the words "returned to play" as Ghaz points out - "no (...) special rule can rescue the unit" -

Return and Rescue are pretty much the same in this case: a Model removed from the board comes back onto the board.

 jasper76 wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

Once again, you are the font of wisdom. I said I would give others the last word, and now I mean it.

A bit of parting advice to my debate opponents...you won't find many, if any, Necron players that share your opinion on whether a character gets Ever Living after a Sweeping Advance. If you want to press the issue, bring all your rules and FAQs, and be prepared to rehash this same exact debate over and over again. At best, you may get someone to roll off on the question after a long while of probably unpleasant conversation.

Every necron player I have ever met, including myself, disagree on your assessment therre. Probably 50 or so over the couple of years of 6th

But then, they're no capable of understanding what "specifically" means, and can apply it to the rules. And they don't ignore inconvenient rules claiming "fluff"

 BlackTalos wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I did. You were a captive. I rescued you.
You were destroyed. I rescued you.

no where in what you posted was this true
If i die from a sudden heart attack , because i eat 4 corn dogs a day , and the doctors say indeed that i died , but they use the paddles and zap my heart back to functioning , did i die ? did i get rescued from having the heart attack ? did i get rescued form death ? no i didn't because i still had the heart attack . I wasn't rescued from death either ,i had the heart attack and was pronounced dead .
BTW real world or fictional examples like these are poor examples at best , they may go over better if you labled each part with actual RaW

Three flowers in a field will define how the 2 clouds will never touch the ground, i agree!

On a more serious note, Ever-Living uses the words "returned to play" as Ghaz points out - "no (...) special rule can rescue the unit" -

Return and Rescue are pretty much the same in this case: a Model removed from the board comes back onto the board.

as i pointed out , if you intent to rescue something , you are preventing something. ( dang you for making me do the next example )
I am about to get shot by a firing squad , READY , AIM , you swing form a rope , grab me and we go out through a open window. Did i get shot ? no . Did you rescue me form getting shot ? Yes . Now lets return to 40k
Did model get removed as a casualty ? Yes
Was it rescued ? No
Returning to play , is returning to play not rescueing

Good job it talks about the unit being rescued, and not the model. And you're still ignoring the inconvenience of the rule "for them, the battle is over"
For the unit the battle is over. You're trying to ignore that, which is a bad thing in a rules debate

rigeld2 wrote:

p33 wrote:If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat instead.

These entire 12 pages come down to: does Ever-living specify what happens due to Sweeping Advance? No, because above is the example of another rule that does specify. So Sweeping advance is "Unaffected" and the models "for them the battle is over".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
Jasper save yourself the aggravation it's not worth it.

Once again, you are the font of wisdom. I said I would give others the last word, and now I mean it.

A bit of parting advice to my debate opponents...you won't find many, if any, Necron players that share your opinion on whether a character gets Ever Living after a Sweeping Advance. If you want to press the issue, bring all your rules and FAQs, and be prepared to rehash this same exact debate over and over again. At best, you may get someone to roll off on the question after a long while of probably unpleasant conversation.

Every necron player I have ever met, including myself, disagree on your assessment therre. Probably 50 or so over the couple of years of 6th

But then, they're no capable of understanding what "specifically" means, and can apply it to the rules. And they don't ignore inconvenient rules claiming "fluff"

OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

p33 wrote:If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a Sweeping Advance, they are not destroyed, but remain locked in combat instead.

These entire 12 pages come down to: does Ever-living specify what happens due to Sweeping Advance? No, because above is the example of another rule that does specify. So Sweeping advance is "Unaffected" and the models "for them the battle is over".

No...you are quoting an example taht applies to what? Space Marines? Its not a global rule.

Indeed. Cue wilful misunderstanding of the word "specific" (or cries that rules are now fluff) in 3....2.....

Edit: damn, didn't even get to "1" before the wilful ignorance of a word was shown. I must type quicker.

kambien wrote:
as i pointed out , if you intent to rescue something , you are preventing something. ( dang you for making me do the next example )
I am about to get shot by a firing squad , READY , AIM , you swing form a rope , grab me and we go out through a open window. Did i get shot ? no . Did you rescue me form getting shot ? Yes . Now lets return to 40k
Did model get removed as a casualty ? Yes
Was it rescued ? No
Returning to play , is returning to play not rescueing

Would you agree you are bringing back the model to a former state or condition?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed. Cue wilful misunderstanding of the word "specific" (or cries that rules are now fluff) in 3....2.....

Edit: damn, didn't even get to "1" before the wilful ignorance of a word was shown. I must type quicker.

Dude, lets put the animosity aside.

Can you answer my question?

Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language. Meaning the two forms, in context, are identical. In order to BE specific it HAS to mention SA, otherwise it isn't specific, it is general.

I even tried explaining specific vs general to you, by pointing out you don't get much more specific than EL - it applies to any RaC, whereas SA is far more constrained and specific.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

Not animosity, just incredulity. Next you will be claiming,using the same logic, that a model that has disembarked from an assault vehicle can now assault, even if it came on from reserves.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

I'm just gonna play this game until you anwer my question.

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

 jasper76 wrote:
OK then, lets go back a couple steps...I have tried to answer every question put to me, so please answer this:

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No...you are quoting an example taht applies to what? Space Marines? Its not a global rule.

It is not a global rule: It is a Special Rule that Specifies how they are affected by Sweeping Advance.

Basically, that Space marine Rule says: If Sweeping Advance, then (B) happens

Ever-Living does not specifically say that.

"Unless otherwise specified", inside a Special Rule, means that you have to say that special rule does (X) to your Special Rule.

I can list a very long list of "specified" rules if that helps? Every time it says what rule (B) does.

 jasper76 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

I'm just gonna play this game until you anwer my question.

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

Already answered., have you read ATSKNF yet. Do you have the vaguest idea what "specific" means now, especially after given an exactly pertinent example?

 jasper76 wrote:
Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

"There is no need for one because it does it automatically"

 Happyjew wrote:

kambien wrote:
as i pointed out , if you intent to rescue something , you are preventing something. ( dang you for making me do the next example )
I am about to get shot by a firing squad , READY , AIM , you swing form a rope , grab me and we go out through a open window. Did i get shot ? no . Did you rescue me form getting shot ? Yes . Now lets return to 40k
Did model get removed as a casualty ? Yes
Was it rescued ? No
Returning to play , is returning to play not rescueing

Would you agree you are bringing back the model to a former state or condition?

i'm not sure , i don't have the everlivng ruleset to compare against

The rules have been quoted oft enough in this thread, that making that claim is telling on how much you have done others the courtesy of reading, and understanding, the thread so far

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jasper - again, "specifically" already includes that language.

Have you read ATSKNF yet? It is the perfect way to explain to you this very basic concept you seem to be struggling so much with.

I'm just gonna play this game until you anwer my question.

Is there a rule that transforms "Unless otherwise specified..." into "Unless otherwise specified by a rule that uses the words Sweeping Advance..."?

Already answered., have you read ATSKNF yet. Do you have the vaguest idea what "specific" means now, especially after given an exactly pertinent example?

You have not answered my question at all. I'd be happy to hear an answer...its just a Yes or No question (although if the answer is Yes, please point me to the rule because I'd honestly like to know about it).

Specific (adjective)
1. having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.
2. specified, precise, or particular: a specific sum of money.
3. peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc.: His specific problems got him into trouble.
4. of a special or particular kind.
5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named (used in combination): The Secretary addressed himself to crop-specific problems.

Ever Living in this case meets definition 1, 2, 3, and 4...and probably 5

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules have been quoted oft enough in this thread, that making that claim is telling on how much you have done others the courtesy of reading, and understanding, the thread so far

omg you speaking about rules quote . No i have not seen the everliving rule quoted in its entire verbiage yet

Incorrect, look backs few posts.

So that's a no to reading ATSKNF then?

Good to hear, failure to follow tenets noted, your "argument" is "hywpi" and nothing more. I will not respond further as you are not making a rules argument.

 jasper76 wrote:

Specific (adjective)
1. having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.
2. specified, precise, or particular: a specific sum of money.
3. peculiar or proper to somebody or something, as qualities, characteristics, effects, etc.: His specific problems got him into trouble.
4. of a special or particular kind.
5. concerned specifically with the item or subject named (used in combination): The Secretary addressed himself to crop-specific problems.

Ever Living in this case meets definition 1, 2, 3, and 4...and probably 5

It doesn't meet 1 - it doesn't explicitly state any special interaction with SA.
It doesn't meet 2 - it doesn't mention SA at all.
3 doesn't really apply at all.
Neither does 4.
It doesn't meet 5 - it doesn't mention SA at all.

You're confusing general with specific. In general, EL returns models to play. Find where it specifically returns after SA.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rules have been quoted oft enough in this thread, that making that claim is telling on how much you have done others the courtesy of reading, and understanding, the thread so far

omg you speaking about rules quote . No i have not seen the everliving rule quoted in its entire verbiage yet

So you cannot actually comment on this argument then? Please, either find the relevant rules in this thread, or look them up elsewhere - likely on this site. An assumption that you had the rules was made given you were so insistent on commenting on them.