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:

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.

It's mentioned only once in the entire rulebook and you're saying that sets a precedent that "wiped out" is an ENTIRELY NEW CONDITION that a unit can be in? If this is your whole argument for "wiped out" meaning something other than "destroyed", its incredibly thin.

No, it still makes more sense that a unit destroyed by SA is still considered "wiped out" with regards to the FAQ.

But as someone else mentioned it makes more of a difference whether EL can bring a unit back after SA without specifically mentioning EL saving a model from SA.

This is where it is important to notice that for EL to work property, the model must be destroyed and THEN come back after combat is resolved completely. Any mention of 'saving the model from SA' would mean the model didn't die and would still be in combat.

1. SA must destroy the model for the correct sequence of events to occur.
2. The FAQ indicates that by using "wiped out" which accurately describes the unit even in the event of destroyed by SA.
3. The model is coming back from an effect of the token long after SA has been resolved completely.

I remember someone mentioning a White Dwarf battle report with Matt Ward shortly after the codex was released. If anyone remembers or had that battle report, can you tell us how Matt Ward played it if any of his units had a character with EL and was killed by sweeping advance?

I need no further evidence that this isn't being argued in good faith, since people are still plainly ignoring that "destroyed" and "wiped out" can mean the same thing.

They only can mean the same thing her in the USA. In England (where the game rules are written), they have completely different meanings, and are not even synonyms of one another.

Happyjew wrote:They only can mean the same thing her in the USA. In England (where the game rules are written), they have completely different meanings, and are not even synonyms of one another.

Like "dice" in American does not mean a cube, though it can mean to cube.

And rescue. . . oh wait.

Happyjew wrote:They only can mean the same thing her in the USA. In England (where the game rules are written), they have completely different meanings, and are not even synonyms of one another.

Are you saying in England, "wiped out" doesn't mean anything related to destroyed? Are you suggesting Matt Ward meant that the unit is extremely tired or that they lost control of a vehicle?

This is getting far more complicated that I thought.

Happyjew wrote:They only can mean the same thing her in the USA. In England (where the game rules are written), they have completely different meanings, and are not even synonyms of one another.

Actually that's false, according to the consolidation rules on page 40 of the BRB.

Unless you aren't allowed to consolidate after killing off an entire unit.

Monster Rain wrote:

Happyjew wrote:They only can mean the same thing her in the USA. In England (where the game rules are written), they have completely different meanings, and are not even synonyms of one another.

Actually that's false, according to the consolidation rules on page 40 of the BRB.

Unless you aren't allowed to consolidate after killing off an entire unit.

And again - a wiped out unit can be destroyed, but a destroyed unit was not nessecarily wiped out to become destroyed.
It's awesome that you're trying to overcome literally years of precedent for them being different.

Like I said earlier:
Apples (wiped out) are fruit (destroyed). Not all fruit (destroyed) are apples (wiped out).

Or are you trying to say a vehicle damaged result of 3 wipes out a weapon, or a vehicle damage result of 5 or 6 wipes out the vehicle?

So basically...

"Destroyed and Wiped Out are totally different!"

"They're used synonymously here."

"Well, not always, but I'm still right!"

Let's suppose for a moment that wiped out and destroyed are the same.

Does it make a difference? Not at all.

The FAQ says if a unit is wiped out the royal court character can still make an EL roll.

Does it say it may make the roll even if the unit is wiped out due to a sweeping advance? Not that I see.

Sweeping advance destroyed the unit, the whole unit, and nothing but the unit.

Any members of the unit or characters attached to the unit are caught up in the sweep and are removed.

If a special rule, any special rule, doesn't say that the unit or any member of it has specific permission to return to the battle, they are all gone.

Happyjew wrote:Like I said earlier:
Apples (wiped out) are fruit (destroyed). Not all fruit (destroyed) are apples (wiped out).

Or are you trying to say a vehicle damaged result of 3 wipes out a weapon, or a vehicle damage result of 5 or 6 wipes out the vehicle?

Sorry to dredge up my past argument that Destroyed can in fact be repaired and destroyed as per the rules does not mean gone foreever.

You can repair weapon destroyed results with any Mek, Tomb Spyder, or Techmarine. So obviously in this case the when the BRB says destroyed it does not indicate any permanence.

And before Nos shows up and says that EL doesn't work against SA. I will refer him back several pages where due to SA's wording indicating its timing EL doesn't have to.

On to the Immediate point. unfortunately Monster Rain I am with Nosferatu and friends on your issue Wiped out =/= destroyed. same as removed from play as casualty =/= removed from play.

Monster Rain wrote:

So basically...

"Destroyed and Wiped Out are totally different!"

"They're used synonymously here."

"Well, not always, but I'm still right!"

Well close...
If they mean the same thing in the rules, you could swap them out with no/few changes to the sentence and it would make sense.
You can't in every case.

You can in one specific case. In that one specific case they are synonymous.
That's exactly what Happy is saying.

time wizard wrote:Let's suppose for a moment that wiped out and destroyed are the same.

Does it make a difference? Not at all.

The FAQ says if a unit is wiped out the royal court character can still make an EL roll.

Does it say it may make the roll even if the unit is wiped out due to a sweeping advance? Not that I see.

Sweeping advance destroyed the unit, the whole unit, and nothing but the unit.

Any members of the unit or characters attached to the unit are caught up in the sweep and are removed.

If a special rule, any special rule, doesn't say that the unit or any member of it has specific permission to return to the battle, they are all gone.

As I stated, in my post due to the timing of SA and EL happening after that I would disagree with what you are saying. I don't believe SA introduces permanence despite its fluff. (The battle is over for them)

Icemyn wrote:I don't believe SA introduces permanence despite its fluff.

I think this is as close to a valid argument as has been posted.
Only it is still wrong.

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I don't believe SA introduces permanence despite its fluff.

I think this is as close to a valid argument as has been posted.
Only it is still wrong.

I would love for you to post a reason for it being wrong, possibly a rule.
Not to be rude but showing up saying something has merit and then dismissing it out
of hand is really a waste of a post.

There are pages of it.

There is nothing new in your post to respond to.

Editing to add the quick and dirty version:
You are rescuing the unit using a special rule that does not mention SA.
The ability to circumvent that by inventing a timing 'rule' is a farce, as far as I can see.

Rescuing a unit later is still rescuing it.

There are pages of it, but there is only one argument: that an idiomatic reading of the rule should take precedence in this case over the literal reading of the rule.
Sadly that argument is about as paper thin as they come.

Then you do not understand the idiom.

kirsanth wrote:Then you do not understand the idiom.

That or the literal reading is also valid. Do you have a reason to believe
that the idiomatic reading should be taken. A rule? A standard? A precedent?
That we should discard the RAW, which by definition is the literal meaning,
for what as I have said before is not even a common use of this idiom.

Icemyn wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I don't believe SA introduces permanence despite its fluff.

I think this is as close to a valid argument as has been posted.
Only it is still wrong.

I would love for you to post a reason for it being wrong, possibly a rule.
Not to be rude but showing up saying something has merit and then dismissing it out
of hand is really a waste of a post.

Destroyed means gone forever. The fact that some units can repair certain destroyed results is irrelevant.
SA destroys the unit. Nothing in EL allows you to over-ride destruction. You can bring a unit back from being wiped out, but we've established that this isn't the same thing. Meks, Spyders, Techmarnies explicitly allow the reversal of destruction. Where is the explicit reversal for EL?

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I don't believe SA introduces permanence despite its fluff.

I think this is as close to a valid argument as has been posted.
Only it is still wrong.

I would love for you to post a reason for it being wrong, possibly a rule.
Not to be rude but showing up saying something has merit and then dismissing it out
of hand is really a waste of a post.

Destroyed means gone forever. The fact that some units can repair certain destroyed results is irrelevant.
SA destroys the unit. Nothing in EL allows you to over-ride destruction. You can bring a unit back from being wiped out, but we've established that this isn't the same thing. Meks, Spyders, Techmarnies explicitly allow the reversal of destruction. Where is the explicit reversal for EL?

In order for your destroy wording to function as you are wanting it would Invalidate Meks, Spyders, Techmarines.
Gone Forever removed from existence is something you cannot come back from.
That is your and Berzerkers definition not mine.
My point is that your wording is incorrect, and if it is incorrect there it must be incorrect for EL.

In answer to the question the rule EL is the explicit reversal. It allows a model that does not exist on the Battlefield to be placed, or recover from being destroyed.

I don't think an explicit reversal for EL is actually needed.

What about:

P1: RP/EL counters are not part of the unit. (they are markers used to keep track of the number of casualties) Necron Codex p.29 1st Paragraph*

P2: SA does not destroy RP/EL counters. (SA destroys the Unit). BRB SA rules

P3: A completed Fall Back move removes and remaining RP counters, but not EL counters. Necron Codex p.29 1st paragraph

P4: RP/EL rolls are not defined as a saving throw. Necron Codex p.29 2nd paragraph

P5: EL(RP) rolls are made at the end of the Assault Phase. Necron Codex p.29 2nd paragraph

C1: If a model with the EL property is removed from play as a casualty, it will always leave an EL counter at the end of that particular phase. (P1,P2,P3)

C2: EL rolls are not done in response to a successful SA. (P4,P5)

*Note that the markers/counters are placed next to the unit. There is no language to suggest that they are 'added to' the unit.

I understand some folks frustration with this debate. My concern is that there is a clear distinction between how EL counters are generated and handled versus how SA is executed. In my opinion both rules do not interact with each other. But it's just my opinion and doesn't mean a whole heck of lot in the grand scheme of things

-Yad

Your P1 is misleading - while the counters are not part of the unit, the model they represent absolutely is.

Yad wrote:I don't think an explicit reversal for EL is actually needed.

What about:

P1: RP/EL counters are not part of the unit. (they are markers used to keep track of the number of casualties) Necron Codex p.29 1st Paragraph*

P2: SA does not destroy RP/EL counters. (SA destroys the Unit). BRB SA rules

P3: A completed Fall Back move removes and remaining RP counters, but not EL counters. Necron Codex p.29 1st paragraph

P4: RP/EL rolls are not defined as a saving throw. Necron Codex p.29 2nd paragraph

P5: EL(RP) rolls are made at the end of the Assault Phase. Necron Codex p.29 2nd paragraph

C1: If a model with the EL property is removed from play as a casualty, it will always leave an EL counter at the end of that particular phase. (P1,P2,P3)

C2: EL rolls are not done in response to a successful SA. (P4,P5)

*Note that the markers/counters are placed next to the unit. There is no language to suggest that they are 'added to' the unit.

I understand some folks frustration with this debate. My concern is that there is a clear distinction between how EL counters are generated and handled versus how SA is executed. In my opinion both rules do not interact with each other. But it's just my opinion and doesn't mean a whole heck of lot in the grand scheme of things

-Yad

All of this is true. However, the Necron FAQ indicates that the IC himself is still a member of the unit even when he's dead; which means that, like all the rest of the unit, he is destroyed by the SA (meaning yes, he's 'killed' twice).

That, honestly, seems to be the bit people are ignoring. The IC is dead; SA kills him AGAIN, and he doesn't have any permission to place an EL counter for that. So even if he DOES make his EL roll. . . he's still destroyed, without any chance to come back.

Yad wrote: P1: RP/EL counters are not part of the unit. (they are markers used to keep track of the number of casualties) Necron Codex p.29 1st Paragraph*

Doesn't sy that in my copy of the codex.

Yad wrote:P2: SA does not destroy RP/EL counters. (SA destroys the Unit). BRB SA rules

The SA rule says nothing about counter of any type.

Yad wrote:P3: A completed Fall Back move removes and remaining RP counters, but not EL counters. Necron Codex p.29 1st paragraph

Does say the former, but does not mention the latter.

Yad wrote:P4: RP/EL rolls are not defined as a saving throw. Necron Codex p.29 2nd paragraph

Tru enough, they aren't.

Yad wrote:P5: EL(RP) rolls are made at the end of the Assault Phase. Necron Codex p.29 2nd paragraph

This also is true.

But where did you get the first 3 'rules' from?

Yad wrote:both rules do not interact with each other.

Only if you think it is not rescuing, to bring a unit back from certain destruction. And that "this stage" is not Sweeping Advance [occurring] and is an indeterminate instant. And that a model in a unit that was wiped out is no longer part of that unit DURING ASSAULT - and thus not an IC.

rigeld2 wrote:Your P1 is misleading - while the counters are not part of the unit, the model they represent absolutely is.

Quoted for Truth.

However, SA does not remove EL counters and EL counters must be rolled for at the end of the phase.
What rule keeps you from rolling and placing the model?

Icemyn wrote:In order for your destroy wording to function as you are wanting it would Invalidate Meks, Spyders, Techmarines.
Gone Forever removed from existence is something you cannot come back from.
That is your and Berzerkers definition not mine.
My point is that your wording is incorrect, and if it is incorrect there it must be incorrect for EL.

In answer to the question the rule EL is the explicit reversal. It allows a model that does not exist on the Battlefield to be placed, or recover from being destroyed.

No, it wouldn't. As I said, those units have special rules that override the destruction.
EL does not give permission to come back from destroyed. It gives permission to come back from wiped out.
Unless I missed a rule citation somewhere in the past 19 pages?

Icemyn wrote:

Quoted for Truth.

However, SA does not remove EL counters and EL counters must be rolled for at the end of the phase.
What rule keeps you from rolling and placing the model?

The fact that he's dead twice does, I would argue. Rolling for EL allows you to recover from being killed, but he was killed AGAIN by the Sweeping Advance, and he wasn't even removed as a casualty that time, so EL has nothing to say about it.

kirsanth wrote:And that "this stage" is not Sweeping Advance [occurring] and is an indeterminate instant.

You have yet to establish this with any rule.