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.

I'm having a hard time understanding this; I'm sorry if I'm breaking any forum rules. But I want to ask about reanimation protocols, specifically having to do with challenges. It came up last night and the more I think about it, the more I think I cheesed my buddy, which wasn't my intention.

We focused on this part of the RAW: "... Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for the purpose of reanimation protocols"

He challenged my Tervigon and was soundly destroyed. Most of the immortals he was with were still on the board.

My question is simple. Would the character stand back up / reanimate after losing a challenge? Is there any situation where this wouldnt happen?

As of right now, you always get Everliving except if the model was caught in a Sweeping Advance.

In your scenario, yes, the character would get to try and stand back up.

he would get a roll in your scenario and the challenge would have to be reissued if you were still in combat next round.

Why would anyone refer to sweeping advance in this thread?

Anyway to keep things even, a lot of people play Necron characters getting EL after sweeping advance, because sweeping advance creates casualties. And before another 20+ page thread is created, a lot of people disagree with the above, so there is no consensus for this issue.

copper.talos wrote:
Why would anyone refer to sweeping advance in this thread?

Because currently you Always get Everliving...

 Happyjew wrote:
except if the model was caught in a Sweeping Advance.

That is the only time you can not roll for Everliving.

Or if you run the unit off the table before rolls get made.

All I see in this thread is EL and challenges. Not sweeping advance.

And, regarding this EL & SA, not rolling EL after sweeping advance is just an opinion. Just as rolling EL after sweeping advance is also an opinion. There are quite a few threads that go on and on about this, without closure. So if there is need of informing players about EL and sweeping advance, the issue should be referred to as unresolved. Trying to make one opinion appear as a defacto ruling to a player that is not very knowledgeable about Necrons is very cheap, and it subverts the very reason this forum exists.

Megamanrocks wrote:
IMy question is simple. Would the character stand back up / reanimate after losing a challenge? Is there any situation where this wouldnt happen?

copper, I underlined the part that you seemed to have missed in the original post.

Sweeping advance does not happen after losing a challenge. You can extrapolate to what happens at the end of the CC to help the OP have a full information about EL in CC and even tell your opinion about it, but then you should also have referred that the issue is unresolved or point to one of the many threads about it. That is good form. I don't think anyone cares to open another "-Oh yes you do -Oh no you don't" thread...

Let's let the OP decide that. You are not the Internet Police and this is a forum for open discussion, not a court of law. (...even though YMDC feels like it sometimes...)
It's not as though anyone's gone horribly off-topic.

Megamanrocks wrote:
We focused on this part of the RAW: "... Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for the purpose of reanimation protocols"

This part doesn't do anything to stop Everliving from working. All it means is, if the Everliving character is the only model left then the rest of the unit that had Reanimation Protocols don't get to make the roll - since there aren't any other RP models left.

Also, it is worth pointing out that it isnt opinion to say EL doesnt work against SA, because the SA rule itself tells you that special rules (EL) dont work unless they specify they do. Given EL doesnt specify it works against Sweeping Advance, it doesnt.

It is pure fact, that is difficult for some to accept

@Super Ready I agree "Let the OP decide that". How is that possible when the OP obviously is not very knowledgeable about Necrons and a heavily disputed issue is presented to him as an official ruling? He'll obviously think that opinion as canon. So it does matter how one presents an issue. With Necrons,there have been quite a few major issues, with a few people claiming their opinion as "RAW" or "rule based" every time, only to be proved wrong again and again after a faq ie RP and JotWW. The same people apparently continue to do so. It's simply a matter of forum-etiquete to present a issue as it is, "unresolved' in this case.

Except its not wrong - with the current rules its correct. GW can and does change rules in FAQs.

copper.talos wrote:
@Super Ready I agree "Let the OP decide that". How is that possible when the OP obviously is not very knowledgeable about Necrons and a heavily disputed issue is presented to him as an official ruling? He'll obviously think that opinion as canon. So it does matter how one presents an issue. With Necrons,there have been quite a few major issues, with a few people claiming their opinion as "RAW" or "rule based" every time, only to be proved wrong again and again after a faq ie RP and JotWW. The same people apparently continue to do so. It's simply a matter of forum-etiquete to present a issue as it is, "unresolved' in this case.

When you can present an argument that doesnt ignore the Sweeping Advance rule, then you can claim the argument is "unresolved"

Every single one of yoru argument fails a very simple hurdle - you are saving a unit when you are EXPLICITLY TOLD this is not possible, UNLESS you rule says otherwise.

Until GW changes the rules, and states that EL does allow you to come back from being SA'd, your position is *wrong* as regards the real, actual, written rules. Nothing you present on here about this issue being "unresolved" can alter this.

Your houserule is fine, however pretending it is real is not.

@rigeld2 I understand that is your opinion, but a lot of people disagree with that opinion. Hence "unresolved". I don't want to start quoting rules where that disagreement is based. There are already threads filled with that and I am sure you've read them. And yes a faq can change a ruling. That happens if there was a previous faq, or a rule got an errata and a faq that takes into account that rule needs to change too. When an issue is faqed for the 1st time, it is an answer to an unresolved issue. This means some people got the rule right in the first place, and some people got it wrong. So it is only mature with issues that create threads of 10+ pages without most people agreeing with one side, to acknowledge that there is another point of view.

copper.talos wrote:
@rigeld2 I understand that is your opinion, but a lot of people disagree with that opinion. Hence "unresolved".

It's my opinion that the sky is tangerine. The issue is now unresolved.

I don't want to start quoting rules where that disagreement is based. There are already threads filled with that and I am sure you've read them. And yes a faq can change a ruling. That happens if there was a previous faq, or a rule got an errata and a faq that takes into account that rule needs to change too. When an issue is faqed for the 1st time, it is an answer to an unresolved issue. This means some people got the rule right in the first place, and some people got it wrong. So it is only mature with issues that create threads of 10+ pages without most people agreeing with one side, to acknowledge that there is another point of view.

But not all points of view have a basis in how the rules are written. You can have as many points of view as you want, but not all of them are valid.
And you're saying that the range FAQ didn't change a rule? Or that the Hard to Hit FAQ didn't change rules? Or any other of the other examples didn't change rules?
Because that's factually incorrect.

Also, thanks for the implication that I'm immature - it totes helps your argument!

How would you characterize a comparison between a statement that can be proven right or wrong with a simple observation, and an opinion about the interraction of a tabletop game rule in one book and another rule in another supplemental book that make people argue time and time again without ever reaching an agreement?

copper.talos wrote:
How would you characterize a comparison between a statement that can be proven right or wrong with a simple observation, and an opinion about the interraction of a tabletop game rule in one book and another rule in another supplemental book that make people argue time and time again without ever reaching an agreement?

I'd say that the person that can't admit fault in the face of evidence is being silly.

I agree...

copper.talos wrote:
I agree...

Great, so given the fact that you've been shown actual rules evidence that you can't come back from SA, you agree you're being silly.
One side has quoted a rule (special rules can't save you from SA) and the other side ignores that rule. One side cites reality (the sky is blue) while the other side insists that it's tangerine.

copper.talos wrote:
I agree...

Fab, so you agree that you are being silly? Glad we can finally agree on something!

You have a rules based argument proving SA trumps EL versus your silly (self admitted!) argument that it doesn't. Blue vs tangerine.

No I agreed that you are being silly. All the rules you want are already posted in quite a few threads dedicated to the RP vs SA issue.

+1 vote to copper.talos is silly...
Have you not read the rule?
how can you still ignore what is being told to you...
NO special rules...

^^^This is pretty much as simplistic to understand as they come..

copper.talos wrote:
No I agreed that you are being silly. All the rules you want are already posted in quite a few threads dedicated to the RP vs SA issue.

Yes, and not a single one refutes the no special rule requirement.
I've been involved in most of them so I'm fully aware of the discussions.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
No I agreed that you are being silly. All the rules you want are already posted in quite a few threads dedicated to the RP vs SA issue.

Yes, and not a single one refutes the no special rule requirement.
I've been involved in most of them so I'm fully aware of the discussions.

And naturally know that this course of discussion will simply lead to another whole thread. Some people can let it lie, others cannot.

Yeah, it's only me that can't let it lie. Copper wasn't the first person in the thread to bring up the "controversy".

Thumbs up, bro.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, it's only me that can't let it lie. Copper wasn't the first person in the thread to bring up the "controversy".

Thumbs up, bro.

To be fair, I'm the one who brought up SA. copper just brought up an opposing viewpoint.

Right, copper brought up the debate and made assertions that weren't true. If he'd said nothing, there'd be no issue.

You may think that your attitude may prevent me from speaking my mind but it got me the same attitude when I argued that JotWW shouldn't cancel RP. Faq agrees.
Same attitude when I argued that Nightscythe's passengers shouldn't take damage after crashing. Faq agrees.
Same still when I argued MSS should be applied to force weapons. FAQ agrees.
So getting the same attiude, especially when it comes from the same people won't do much.

For those who are not educated in the subject of RP & SA, here is a 7 page thread to read and make your own minds.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/523208.page

copper.talos wrote:
You may think that your attitude may prevent me from speaking my mind but it got me the same attitude when I argued that JotWW shouldn't cancel RP. Faq agrees.
Same attitude when I argued that Nightscythe's passengers shouldn't take damage after crashing. Faq agrees.
Same still when I argued MSS should be applied to force weapons. FAQ agrees.
So getting the same attiude, especially when it comes from the same people won't do much.

Yes, the FAQ changed the rules in 2 cases. You're absolutely incorrect if you think the actual rules said that beforehand for Jaws and the Nightscythe.
That's my point. You can argue intent all you want - I agreed with you on Jaws overall. And I argued the same side as you on MSS. That has nothing to do with what the rules actually say.
And I've never said that GW could not rule the other way - that'd be ludicrous. But you need to separate intent from what's actually written.

GW "agreeing" with you means nothing. Or should I go through and find all the times GW "agreed" with me?