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.

Fine, I tried to be civil. You read it one way that creates an ongoing effect by inference only. I see nothing that states clearly and without conflict an ongoing effect.

liturgies of blood wrote:Fine, I tried to be civil. You read it one way that creates an ongoing effect by inference only. I see nothing that states clearly and without conflict an ongoing effect.

Everything points to it being an ongoing effect.
1) The restriction is listed.
2) There's no end time on the restriction.
3) Other restrictions do have end times (psyker powers).
4) Assuming that nothing is ongoing unless it specifies breaks the game - wounds.

I am being civil. You just haven't factually supported your case.

The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

liturgies of blood wrote:The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

And you still haven't found anything that says the stage ends - you're still assuming without evidence that it ends when SA finishes resolving.
Page 15 doesn't say anything about wounds carrying on - it just says to "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." Done, resolved. Next step I can add that wound back because there's nothing saying the wound is ongoing, right?

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

And you still haven't found anything that says the stage ends - you're still assuming without evidence that it ends when SA finishes resolving.
Page 15 doesn't say anything about wounds carrying on - it just says to "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." Done, resolved. Next step I can add that wound back because there's nothing saying the wound is ongoing, right?

Poor argument is poor. What's next? BRB doesn't define "that"? A stage by definition is a period of time or process, a process ends. A defined period of time or action has a beginning and an end.

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:The restriction is listed with a time-frame for its application, this stage. Wounds do carry on, they even specify that....
Nothing bar one sentence that can mean two different things says it's ongoing and only in your reading of it.

And you still haven't found anything that says the stage ends - you're still assuming without evidence that it ends when SA finishes resolving.
Page 15 doesn't say anything about wounds carrying on - it just says to "Reduce that model's Wounds by 1." Done, resolved. Next step I can add that wound back because there's nothing saying the wound is ongoing, right?

Poor argument is poor. What's next? BRB doesn't define "that"? A stage by definition is a period of time or process, a process ends. A defined period of time or action has a beginning and an end.

No, its pointing out that YOUR argument is flawed, and has been throughout this thread. You have failed to provide any support for your "this ends at the end of SA" contention, and get uncivil when asked.

A stage has an end when a rule calls for it. Wounds dont have an end, they continue to the end of the battle. BEing unable to rescue the unit doesnt have an end, they continue to the end of the battle.

Time to step away?

liturgies of blood wrote:A stage by definition is a period of time or process, a process ends. A defined period of time or action has a beginning and an end.

Agreed. Now where in the rules does it tell us that the period of time (where the unit cannot be saved) ends? It doesn't. Therefore it does not end until the game is over.

DeathReaper wrote:

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).

This is where your argument fails. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that we all accept that the ATSKNF rule is the example by which other rules must use to allow a unit to avoid being swept by a SA. Now, how does the ATSKNF rule actually save or rescues the unit from a SA? It stops the SA from happening. It doesn't allow the SA to happen then destroy the unit (RFPaaC) and them bring them back. The restriction in SA about 'unless otherwise specified' is all about stopping the SA from happening to the unit that loses the Assault. This is what you guys aren't getting. For whatever reason your thinking that EL somehow equates to ATSKNF with respect to saving/rescuing a unit from a SA when clearly that's not how either rule mechanic works.

-Yad

No, what you arent getting is that you are, without any rules support whatsoever (as in none, zip, zilch, nada - not a single shred of rules support at any point in this entire thread that supports your contention) deciding that the only way to rescue / save a unit is to prevent them from being RaaC.

Again: WBB was a "special rule" that did not specify that it could rescue a unit from SA, and it was stated as the canonical example of such. EL is also a special rule, that does not specify it can rescue a unit from SA, so it cannot.

Please, for once provide a rule that supports your contention that the ONLY way to rescue a unit from SA is to prevent the unit from being removed. Language and context of the actual rules states the opposite, so this could be an interesting exercise

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

Oh really? It mentions that units that were swept can be rescued now?
... Hrm. I must have a misprint rulebook then.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Oh look, I found it. Consolidation.

Oh really? It mentions that units that were swept can be rescued now?
... Hrm. I must have a misprint rulebook then.

A unit cannot continue to move units in the shooting phase. Naturally when Sweeping Advance is completely resolved, the unit may make a Consolidation move.

Nothing allows you to make a Sweeping Advance during or after your Consolidation move.

Sweeping Advance says nothing about preventing anything at the end of the phase.

...which doesnt answer the question asked. When does "at this stage", a condition within SA, end? Find a rule ending that specific stage.

Hint: if you are just assuming this ends, then multiwound models regenerate wounds at the end of the wound removal step, as they also have no language stating their effects last.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

Ad hominem much? I hope you realize that we have, for the entirety of this thread, been discussing two rules. SA and EL. When you make these odd assertions for people to produce rules beyond these two, it strikes me as a Straw Man. This is a discussion about these two rules. There is no need to talk about 'other rules'.

For them the battle is over because they've been destroyed and RFPaaC by the SA. At that stage (i.e., the destruction and RFPaaC) only specific rules can stop the actual destruction and subsequent RFPaaC. EL does not do this. Only ATSKNF does.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

Another nonsensical statement. All I've been doing is discussing the interaction, or more importantly the lack thereof, of two rules. There is no ignoring of rules. If so, I'd love to know what rules, outside of SA and EL I'm ignoring.

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...which doesnt answer the question asked. When does "at this stage", a condition within SA, end? Find a rule ending that specific stage.

Hint: if you are just assuming this ends, then multiwound models regenerate wounds at the end of the wound removal step, as they also have no language stating their effects last.

This stage being SA ends when SA ends, SA ends when you move on to the next part of the assault phase. Are you for real?
You keep throwing absurd bs out there and assume it invalidates our argument.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Get out of 4th edition. You cannot make an argument about WRITTEN RULES using the WRITING from any other Codex or rulebook. You might as well quote a newspaper.

We are discussing 6th edition rules precisely as they are written, word for word here. Go start a thread if you want to discuss 4th edition.

And the 6th edition rule for "no special rule" is identical to the 5th and 4th edition rule. Go figure, that means that you can make precise comparisons and point out where your timing argument has been destroyed.

WBB was THE example of a rule that could not save or rescue a unit, and occurred a full turn later than EL can ever do. So your entire argument fails because you cannot find a reason why EL would work when WBB would not. BEar in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

So, again, your argument is flawed as it cannot overcome one single simple hurdle, never mind all the others you have missed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...which doesnt answer the question asked. When does "at this stage", a condition within SA, end? Find a rule ending that specific stage.

Hint: if you are just assuming this ends, then multiwound models regenerate wounds at the end of the wound removal step, as they also have no language stating their effects last.

This stage being SA ends when SA ends, SA ends when you move on to the next part of the assault phase. Are you for real?
You keep throwing absurd bs out there and assume it invalidates our argument.

Because it does

So, you assume that wounds end whenyou have finished applying them to a model? Where is your rules support to say otherwise?

Yad - again, please provide support for "at this stage" ending, the assumption you continually make with so far zero support.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Get out of 4th edition. You cannot make an argument about WRITTEN RULES using the WRITING from any other Codex or rulebook. You might as well quote a newspaper.

We are discussing 6th edition rules precisely as they are written, word for word here. Go start a thread if you want to discuss 4th edition.

And the 6th edition rule for "no special rule" is identical to the 5th and 4th edition rule. Go figure, that means that you can make precise comparisons and point out where your timing argument has been destroyed.

WBB was THE example of a rule that could not save or rescue a unit, and occurred a full turn later than EL can ever do. So your entire argument fails because you cannot find a reason why EL would work when WBB would not. BEar in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

So, again, your argument is flawed as it cannot overcome one single simple hurdle, never mind all the others you have missed.

And the removed from play has been clarified to be RFPaaC.... something is different.

You managed to not read what I wrote then. Try again

Hint, im talking about "no special rule", in case mentioning it once wasnt clear enough

Yad wrote:This is where your argument fails. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that we all accept that the ATSKNF rule is the example by which other rules must use to allow a unit to avoid being swept by a SA. Now, how does the ATSKNF rule actually save or rescues the unit from a SA? It stops the SA from happening. It doesn't allow the SA to happen then destroy the unit (RFPaaC) and them bring them back. The restriction in SA about 'unless otherwise specified' is all about stopping the SA from happening to the unit that loses the Assault. This is what you guys aren't getting. For whatever reason your thinking that EL somehow equates to ATSKNF with respect to saving/rescuing a unit from a SA when clearly that's not how either rule mechanic works.

The unit is destroyed. Post EL is the unit still destroyed?
If you answer no, you've rescued the unit.

Saying that since one example of saving you from SA stops the SA from working at all means that all abilities that save you from SA must stop SA from working at all doesn't work.


edit: Oops, I typed yes but meant no. Nos, if you could edit the quote it'd be great.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:This is where your argument fails. I think I'm pretty safe in saying that we all accept that the ATSKNF rule is the example by which other rules must use to allow a unit to avoid being swept by a SA. Now, how does the ATSKNF rule actually save or rescues the unit from a SA? It stops the SA from happening. It doesn't allow the SA to happen then destroy the unit (RFPaaC) and them bring them back. The restriction in SA about 'unless otherwise specified' is all about stopping the SA from happening to the unit that loses the Assault. This is what you guys aren't getting. For whatever reason your thinking that EL somehow equates to ATSKNF with respect to saving/rescuing a unit from a SA when clearly that's not how either rule mechanic works.

The unit is destroyed. Post EL is the unit still destroyed?
If you answer yes, you've rescued the unit.

Saying that since one example of saving you from SA stops the SA from working at all means that all abilities that save you from SA must stop SA from working at all doesn't work.

This, again

Yad - you continually preach that the only way to rescue the unit from SA is to prevent SA. This has no rules support. You continually dodge this

Well the only way that prevents SA is ATSKNF, there are no other rules I am aware of that prevent it occurring. To rescue a unit you must prevent the SA or the outcome. Similar to rescuing a drunk from a tiger, must rescue him before the tiger takes him out.

liturgies of blood wrote:Well the only way that prevents SA is ATSKNF, there are no other rules I am aware of that prevent it occurring. To rescue a unit you must prevent the SA or the outcome.

And what's the outcome? A destroyed unit.

Similar to rescuing a drunk from a tiger, must rescue him before the tiger takes him out.

Tiger mauls drunk. Drunk is mortally wounded. Drunk goes to hospital and surgeon saves his life.

Ah but a save is defined in the rulebook. A rescue isn't.
The outcome of SA is RFPaaC.

liturgies of blood wrote:Ah but a save is defined in the rulebook. A rescue isn't.

He was going to die. The surgeon rescued him. Also, "or other special rule".

The outcome of SA is RFPaaC.

You keep leaving part of that off. I'm starting to think it's intentional.

It is. Cos that's what the outcome is. The RFPaaC cannot be prevented unless you have something akin to ATSKNF, but once the SA is concluded, it has concluded.

liturgies of blood wrote:It is. Cos that's what the outcome is. The RFPaaC cannot be prevented unless you have something akin to ATSKNF, but once the SA is concluded, it has concluded.

Correct. But the effects last.

Or do I get to put my unit back on the table? After all, SA is done resolving.
Why is only some of the rule an ongoing effect, and not all of it?

Because nothing specifies that SA's restriction goes on, while the game doesn't work if wounds don't get counted. Wounds carry on as per page 2.

RFPaaC is an ongoing effect, for almost every unit in the game it is an ongoing and permanent effect, just not in this specific case.

liturgies of blood wrote:Because nothing specifies that SA's restriction goes on, while the game doesn't work if wounds don't get counted.

So you're arbitrarily applying a limit? Okay.

Wounds carry on as per page 2.

Perhaps I missed it - where does it say they carry on?

RFPaaC is an ongoing effect, for almost every unit in the game it is an ongoing and permanent effect, just not in this specific case.

And what tells you that - since you're the one asserting that it must be stated?

Sorry, my mistake. For wounds carry on read, page 2 as you quoted, page 3, zero-lvl characteristics(the bold text) and page 15 the wound allocation.

So the wound is a measure of how much damage a model can take, if this value falls to zero you die, you remove them til you run out. Once you run out the models are removed from play. Where in that can you restore the wound counter after each turn? Page 2 tells you in very fluffy language that when you hit zero wounds a model cannot fight any longer.

Well EL tells you that on a successful roll that you can come back. That's where it's stated, that is one of 3 rules that can allow a model to be on the board after being RFPaaC.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Bear in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

Wut? ...yah, we're talking about third edition codexes now. Keep thinking that.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Bear in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

Not sure where that nugget came from.
5th ed codex says different. GW says different.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Bear in mind that nothing invalidates the 3rd edition codex - it can still be used now.

Wut? ...yah, we're talking about third edition codexes now. Keep thinking that.

Sigh. MIssing the point again. Shock.