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.

Is Sweeping Advance a one time action or a lasting effect?

I ask because of how my question directly relates to sweeping advance and how it works with ever-living. I have included relevant information to all questions regarding the chain of events that I'm aware of.


Lets look at the order of events:

1. BRB pg.40 "When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, atempting to cut down the retreating enemies."

Sweeping Advance is an action taken by the victor.


2. With a successful SA, the winner catches the loser and destroys the unit. Loser is removed and cannot be saved "at this stage" by any special rule. My emphasis on "at this

stage".

Can a EL counter be placed?
Necron FAQ:
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.

But the FAQ says "wiped out" not "destroyed"; additional info:
Wiped out means destroy in British (and all) English and is not redefined in the rulebook:
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/wipeout

Does SA remove tokens (and are counters the same as the model still being in play)?
Necron Codex p.29: "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a RP counter to it's unit. Instead place an Ever Living counter where the model was removed from play."

Therefore the model was removed from play. Only the counter remains which has not been added to any unit. These two facts must be emphasised.

3. Consolidation - The sweeping advance action for this unit has finished. It now performs a consolidation move.

4. End of phase - Ever-Living tokens are rolled for and successful rolls allow a model to return to play within 3" of the counter. Though it could be said we just "saved the model", sweeping advance is no longer in effect since the unit peforming that action has gone on to do other things.


Conclusion: Sweeping advance is an action that is done by a unit and stops when the next action is taken by the unit. Though a model with EL may be "saved", it was not "saved" from destruction by sweeping advance and does not conradict the SA rules when it returns to play.

dont start this again.....

You see all the work that is having to be done to make your interpretation of the rules work? You're having to emphasize two words out of an entire rule. You're having to look for hidden meaning or second-guessing what the rules say.

Do you really think that is what is intended by the rules? To make you create a dissertation about why SA doesn't affect EL models?

The Law of Economy: Don't multiply beyond necessity.

Meaning, don't add to a problem if you don't need to. If the rules function normally without your interpretation, it is more likely that the functioning rules are working as intended rather than requiring English and Law degrees to figure out if your model stands back up.

Or more simply, Easter eggs don't exist in 40K.

Even more simply, that model is dead.

Quoting from the Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

An appeal to dictionary definitions invalidates your argument.

puma713 wrote:You see all the work that is having to be done to make your interpretation of the rules work? You're having to emphasize two words out of an entire rule. You're having to look for hidden meaning or second-guessing what the rules say.

Do you really think that is what is intended by the rules? To make you create a dissertation about why SA doesn't affect EL models?

The Law of Economy: Don't multiply beyond necessity.

Meaning, don't add to a problem if you don't need to. If the rules function normally without your interpretation, it is more likely that the functioning rules are working as intended rather than requiring English and Law degrees to figure out if your model stands back up.

Actually my interpretation of the FAQ regarding Ever-Living is that it intentionally describes no exceptions and is meant to be followed as is. It says that when the unit is completely removed from play without exception, you get an EL roll. My basic understanding couldn't be more simple or common sense.

What we have is some people are now saying that the FAQ regarding EL "forgot to mention xyz exception".

Each point I have emphasized is an response to one of the many arguments claiming the FAQ either contradicts RAW or is incomplete. I have (hopefully) presented reasonable explanations for why the FAQ as it stands does not contradict RAW and is not missing any exceptions.

The FAQ explains how a specific instance works (EL) regarding a general rule (SA as it applies to all units in the game). This should cover specific > general.

"What we have is some people are now saying that the FAQ regarding EL "forgot to mention xyz exception". "

No, it forgot to SPECIFY it worked against Sweeping Advance. Sweeping Advance sets the standard required for a special rule to work against it.

You still dont understand specific vs general, even when the rule in question tels you you need specific wording.

It doesnt contradict RAW, it just lacks the requirements placed upon it by the SA rule. As such it doesnt apply

You will apparently never understand this very simple requirement.

solkan wrote:Quoting from the Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

An appeal to dictionary definitions invalidates your argument.

An appeal to a dictionary definition may not prove my argument to anyone, but it certainly does not invalidate it. In this case someone said "destroy" and "wipe out" do not mean the same thing. A British dictionary definition clears that up quickly.

<thread terminated; this is being discussed to death in a variety of threads; we don't need a new one>