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:Wiped out is destroyed, but Destroyed is not wiped out.
Think of it this way, all apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples.

Can you tell me where this is clearly described in the rulebook?

Morale Checks - covers destroyed which is the superset, wiped out are members of the set "destroyed"

nosferatu1001 wrote:Morale Checks - covers destroyed which is the superset, wiped out are members of the set "destroyed"

What page of the rulebook is this distinction explained on or is this something you're making up? I don't believe I saw the word "superset" in any of the rules.

It's called reading comprehension.

Do you ask for them to explain "the" as well?

Removed isn't defined in the rules. Man, it's like sometimes the rules don't define every word.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It's called reading comprehension.

Do you ask for them to explain "the" as well?

A unit that is considered in the game to have been "wiped out" can be called "destroyed". A unit that is referred to as "destroyed" can be said to have been "wiped out". This is because in modern English these phrases would share the same meaning. There is no difference unless its defined differently in the rule book.

Now, show me in the rule book where your made up distinction exists or stop saying that.

That's incorrect. Wiped out doesnt mean removed from existence. Destroyed does. It means in repairable. Wiped out doesn't.

rigeld2 wrote:That's incorrect. Wiped out doesnt mean removed from existence. Destroyed does. It means in repairable. Wiped out doesn't.

You are completely wrong. I hate to be TFG but here you go from dictionary.com:

Verb phrases
18.
wipe out,
a.
to destroy completely; demolish: The entire city was wiped out.

Can we establish that "wiped out" is interchangeable with "destroyed"?

Apparently you can neither read the tenets of this forum nor use the language the book was written in.

EVEN IF the two are synonymous in the rules (they arent, just to remind you of this inconvenient fact) this still does not alter that the FAQ does NOT specify that you can make EL rules having been Sweeping Advanced, which is a REQUIREMENT of the Sweeping Advance rules.

Unless you can find the words "Sweeping Advance' in either the Necron FAQ or the codex, you STILL LACK any form of rules support for your position.

We're also back to page 1. Shock

nosferatu1001 wrote:Apparently you can neither read the tenets of this forum nor use the language the book was written in.

EVEN IF the two are synonymous in the rules (they arent, just to remind you of this inconvenient fact) this still does not alter that the FAQ does NOT specify that you can make EL rules having been Sweeping Advanced, which is a REQUIREMENT of the Sweeping Advance rules.

Unless you can find the words "Sweeping Advance' in either the Necron FAQ or the codex, you STILL LACK any form of rules support for your position.

We're also back to page 1. Shock

Now you're trying to brush it away, but before we move on, can you prove that they are not synonymous in the rules? Can we establish that you are WRONG and that "wiped out" means the same thing as "destroyed" in both the rules and in modern english?

Can we at least agree that the FAQ could be read as "destroyed" or "wiped out"? I have proven my point unless you can produce something specific in the rule book that says otherwise.

No, I am not. I am pointing out where you are going wrong in your argument, and apparently that is "brushing it away"?

Whatever. You are posting in contravention of the tenets of the forum

No, that FAQ cannot be read as "wiped out" / "destroyed", because :

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/destroy

"to damage something so badly that it does not exist or cannot be used
- Most of the old part of the city was destroyed by bombs during the war.
- The accident seemed to have completely/totally destroyed his confidence.
•
to kill an animal because it is ill, in pain or dangerous"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/wipe-out

"wipe out phrasal verb
US informal
Definition
to lose control, especially in a vehicle, and have an accident
I was going too fast and I wiped out on the bend."

So, this is another dictionary, a British English one at least (although only Cambridge ED, not OED, as that is paywalled) that does NOT have the same synonyms or internal definition.

DAMN! that could be why you dont use dictionary quotes in YMDC!

You are still wrong.

Oh, and just for completeness:

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/landing/?ad=cdo&utm_medium=default&utm_campaign=VT&utm_source=cdo&word=wipe+out

Doesnt list "destroy" as a synonym. When you look at "destroy" "wipe out" does not appear either.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

DAMN! that could be why you dont use dictionary quotes in YMDC!

You are still wrong.

Ah my bad. I won't do that again. So then, here we go:

1. FAQ overrides rulebook as FAQ's do.

2. FAQ says models with EL can come back after their unit is "wiped out".

3. "Wiped out" is synonymous with "destroyed".

4. But SA? See #1.

Nemesor Dave wrote:can you prove that they are not synonymous in the rules?

Yes we can prove they are different with a little thing called context.

Page 41, Assault Results: Remember that winning units can only sweeping advance if all the units they were locked with fall back or are wiped out in the fight.

Since this is talking about making a SA, we already know that the unit must fall back. In order to make a SA, the winning unit cannot be locked in combat which means their enemies all must either fall back or have been killed in combat.

Page 40: The falling back unit is destroyed...The destroyed unit is removed immediately.
Page 95: DS Mishap, 1-2: Terrible accident!: The entire unit is destroyed.

This tells us that the unit is completely gone with no way to come back.

Wiped out means killed by shooting/cc attacks.
Destroyed means gone. Never gonna come back.

Can we at least agree that the FAQ could be read as "destroyed" or "wiped out"?

If GW meant for a destroyed unit to be able to come back, they would have said destroyed, not wiped out.

I have proven my point unless you can produce something specific in the rule book that says otherwise

We have produced something specific. The fact that SA says that nothing can save them [the unit], unless the special rule specifies that they can be saved from SA.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Ah my bad. I won't do that again. So then, here we go:

1. FAQ overrides rulebook as FAQ's do.

Ah, this is your first mistake here. No. Specific > General. that is how the ENTIRE ruleset operates. All of it. So, does the FAQ mention SA? No? Then it cannot be more specific than SA, because SA tells you the rule must SPECIFY it works against SA otherwise it doesnt

Nemesor Dave wrote:2. FAQ says models with EL can come back after their unit is "wiped out".

3. "Wiped out" is synonymous with "destroyed".

2 is correct. 3 is wrong, as we've proven. Wiped out can be destroyed, but destroyed is not wiped out. Similar to apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples.

Nemesor Dave wrote:4. But SA? See #1.

See your mistake at 1

Here's an argument I haven't seen provided, just for the sake of contributing:

1) Unit is sweeping advanced.

2) It is destroyed, and a KP is awarded, so that if the game ended before the end of the phase for some reason, the EL models would count as KPs.

3) Having destroyed the unit and awarded KPs thusly, SA has finished its order of operations.

4) The Overlord passes his EL roll, deducting one from Opponent's Kill Point total (retroactively?). The Overlord model is returned to play.

This satisfies Sweeping Advance: the unit is destroyed and not saved, KPs are even awarded.

This satisfies Everliving: the unit is returned to play after being removed.

NOTE: this requires a possibly spurious distinction between Returned to Play and Saved.

Wrong.

Kill Points are counted when the game ends. They are not awarded when a unit is destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:Wrong.

Kill Points are counted when the game ends. They are not awarded when a unit is destroyed.

So if the game ended after he died before he could roll, would he be a KP?

I think so!

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Wrong.

Kill Points are counted when the game ends. They are not awarded when a unit is destroyed.

So if the game ended after he died before he could roll, would he be a KP?

I think so!

Correct - but that's not possible with the current rules.

edit: Note that this has nothing to do with the topic. I'm simply addressing the KP issue.

It is possible in a dice down situation in a tournament - I beat a Necron player because we timed out before he could make his rolls. If he has saved a single IC we would have tied.

So it is possible.

As far as the rest of my argument, what is wrong with it? The KP think is kind of irrelevant.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So if the game ended after he died before he could roll, would he be a KP?

I think so!

As regeld2 said, with the current rules it's not possible.

Last codes, Necrons rolled for WBB at the start of their turn. So it was possible for the game to end with Necron models awaiting WBB. They would then be removed as casualties.

In the new Necron rules, you roll for RP and EL at the end of the phase. So it is not possible for the game to end and have any Necron models (or rather the counters that represent them) awaiting their rolls.

Unit1126PLL wrote:It is possible in a dice down situation in a tournament - I beat a Necron player because we timed out before he could make his rolls. If he has saved a single IC we would have tied.

I thought most tournaments let the turn finish just to prevent things like that. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the rules.

As far as the rest of my argument, what is wrong with it? The KP think is kind of irrelevant.

The KP thing is 100% irrelevant. The rest of it, you should probably read the thread.

Like Unit said, in the tourney, there was a time clock. If the time ran out right after you roll to hit, you did not get a chance to roll to wound. In his situation, the clock ran out before the end of the phase, so his necron opponent literally did not have time to roll RP/EL.

See my above post - it is absolutely possible.

Everything from an emergency ending the game early to tournament time outs to simple store closings could end the game in that period.

As it is I think this is getting away from the topic at hand, but it does help with nos and my goal of reaching a 20-page argument.

And I did read the thread - the first opposition to my style argument was it did not award KPs.

Apparently it doesn't matter, so that's a silly counter. Sorry if I missed the other counters.

Happyjew wrote:but it does help with nos and my goal of reaching a 20-page argument.

I am fairly certain 20-pages would not be all that crazy here.

Now I wonder what the longest thread in YMDC was. . .and if it is different than the longest thread that was not locked.

/ponder


Ooops. I think that was off-topic.
One of them anyway.

In case your curious it comes from her:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/427179.page

nosferatu1001 wrote:Indeed, all we need is another 20 page monster thread of the same 2 arguments being shot down over and over and over....to the mega thread!

Anyways, I'll concede the point. After all, more dead Necrons for my Marines!

Unit1126PLL wrote:And I did read the thread - the first opposition to my style argument was it did not award KPs.

Apparently it doesn't matter, so that's a silly counter. Sorry if I missed the other counters.

Like... the rest of the thread? Seriously, your argument is nothing new - it's essentially the exact same thing I said.

Please read the thread and quote/reference what you're going to argue against.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:And I did read the thread - the first opposition to my style argument was it did not award KPs.

Apparently it doesn't matter, so that's a silly counter. Sorry if I missed the other counters.

Like... the rest of the thread? Seriously, your argument is nothing new - it's essentially the exact same thing I said.

Please read the thread and quote/reference what you're going to argue against.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Anyways, I'll concede the point. After all, more dead Necrons for my Marines!