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.

liturgies of blood wrote:No they didn't. The common use of at this stage is now. "At this stage of the game Ireland have really got to pull out something big", a commonly heard phrase from Soccer pundits. English is defined by use and since most people use it to mean now or during this period. You have not got a leg to stand on.

And when you move on to the next stage, unless Ireland pulls out something big it doesn't change.

liturgies of blood wrote:At that stage. Later on is not forbidden.

Find the rule lifting the restriction.
Or are you asserting that rules must specify they're ongoing?

No I am saying that the rule is self containing as the restriction refers to this stage.

Ireland being gak at football isn't the point, the point is that at this stage is used to mean now or at this time.
When they didn't preform it becomes "At that stage Ireland really had to ...."

Maybe an example you can grasp is F1 racing, if the safety car is out no overtaking is allowed at this stage. All cars must slow down and allow the track to be made safe.

The stage is the time when the safety car is out. It is not the change of stage, it is a period of time.

Ah, more insults.

I would hope it was clear by now the Rigeld can entirely grasp your points, its just your points are wrong, as your own quotes proved.

liturgies of blood wrote:Maybe an example you can grasp is F1 racing, if the safety car is out no overtaking is allowed at this stage. All cars must slow down and allow the track to be made safe.

And there's a built in lifting of the restriction when moving to the next stage - because that's how the F1 rules are written.
When the car is out, no passing. No car, you can pass.
When the SA happens, no rescuing. There isn't a rule that "undoes" what SA asserts when you move on to the next stage.

The stage is the time when the safety car is out. It is not the change of stage, it is a period of time.

The change of stage has the removal of the restriction built into it for F1.
No such correlation exists in the BRB.

At this point I'm done. I've been fed false analogies, assertions that haven't been supported by rules (an ongoing effect has to explicitly say so), and general derision and insults.
No, I haven't reported any posts because while it's annoying, I'm used to it.

I'll wait for an FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, more insults.

I would hope it was clear by now the Rigeld can entirely grasp your points, its just your points are wrong, as your own quotes proved.

Which quotes the one that used "at this stage" to refer to a non continuous event? The ones that refereed to a defined period of action and/or time. Rigeld did not respond to my point he sidestepped it. Whether he can understand it or not is not my contention, if he feels insulted I can make amends to him. He is a big boy and doesn't need your protection.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Maybe an example you can grasp is F1 racing, if the safety car is out no overtaking is allowed at this stage. All cars must slow down and allow the track to be made safe.

And there's a built in lifting of the restriction when moving to the next stage - because that's how the F1 rules are written.
When the car is out, no passing. No car, you can pass.
When the SA happens, no rescuing. There isn't a rule that "undoes" what SA asserts when you move on to the next stage.

The stage is the time when the safety car is out. It is not the change of stage, it is a period of time.

The change of stage has the removal of the restriction built into it for F1.
No such correlation exists in the BRB.

At this point I'm done. I've been fed false analogies, assertions that haven't been supported by rules (an ongoing effect has to explicitly say so), and general derision and insults.
No, I haven't reported any posts because while it's annoying, I'm used to it.

I'll wait for an FAQ.

When SA is happening no saves or special rules. Where does it say the SA is ongoing?

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:When the stage changes, that restriction is no longer in place.

Why do you keep asserting that? There's no language saying so in SA. You're implying that for something to be ongoing it must be explicitly stated as such. Am I misunderstanding you?

The wording of SA explicitly states that the effect is not ongoing.

As an example:
1. You may not wear red at 12:00 pm.
A: So you may wear red at 12:01. There is no restriction at that time.

2. You may not save/rescue the unit at this stage.
B: So you may save/rescue the unit at the next stage (Consolidation). There is no restriction at the Consolidation stage.

The phrase "at this stage" is an explicit limitation on when you may not save/rescue the unit.

Permissive rulset:
If you may always do X.
But a rule comes and says during Y you may not do X. This does not stop you from ever doing X again.
Any other time you may do X as long as it's not during Y.

You keep on making up that the next stage is consolidation. This is not written anywhere. Permissivbe ruleset - show permission for the stage to end.

Oh, you cant. SHock.

Liturgies - not offering protection, juist pointing out that you yet again resort to insults, and dodge the question

liturgies of blood wrote:Rigeld did not respond to my point he sidestepped it.

That's false. Your refusal to accept my response as valid isn't my concern. I haven't sidestepped anything.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Rigeld did not respond to my point he sidestepped it.

That's false. Your refusal to accept my response as valid isn't my concern. I haven't sidestepped anything.

How does your response relate to my example of using "at this stage" to mean now in a day to day example.

It might be because it has nothing to do with the context of the rule?

(not answerting for Rigeld, just trying to explain the issue)

nosferatu1001 wrote:It might be because it has nothing to do with the context of the rule?

(not answerting for Rigeld, just trying to explain the issue)

Well it doesn't change the context it changes the meaning of a sentence that instills a restriction. You say that at this stage is an ongoing event beyond SA, I disagree. I offer an example of something used in common parlance, that example has everything to do with how it's read.

Here the BRB defines a stage:

Manifesting Psychic Powers p. 67
"Different psychic powers are used at different stages in the
turn; some powers are used at the start of the turn, others
are used at the start of a particular phase, or might replace a
model's normal action within that phase. Sometimes, this will
be specified in the psychic power itself."

The last point - a models normal action within a phase is a stage. Within the combat phase, Sweeping Advance is a stage. The next stage is Consolidation.

Of course stages end when the next begins. The start of the turn does not continue onward into the rest of the game. That would be absurd.

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Rigeld did not respond to my point he sidestepped it.

That's false. Your refusal to accept my response as valid isn't my concern. I haven't sidestepped anything.

How does your response relate to my example of using "at this stage" to mean now in a day to day example.

liturgies of blood wrote:The common use of at this stage is now. "At this stage of the game Ireland have really got to pull out something big", a commonly heard phrase from Soccer pundits. English is defined by use and since most people use it to mean now or during this period. You have not got a leg to stand on.

rigeld2 wrote:And when you move on to the next stage, unless Ireland pulls out something big it doesn't change.

They don't have to pull out something big now. The game can continue on and as soon as they do pull out something big the "restriction" is lifted.
As I said - I didn't sidestep anything. Please retract the statement so I can continue ignoring the thread until/unless it's FAQed.

rigeld2 wrote:
They don't have to pull out something big now. The game can continue on and as soon as they do pull out something big the "restriction" is lifted.
As I said - I didn't sidestep anything. Please retract the statement so I can continue ignoring the thread until/unless it's FAQed.

I certainly hope I haven't insulted you. That was no my intention at all.

I believe I have shown without a shadow of doubt:

1. SA is an action done by the unit - it "makes a Sweeping Advance".
2. SA and Consolidation actions done by the unit and thus are separate stages.
3. Stages end when the next stage begins as does the "start of turn stage" and "start of combat phase" stage.

This is how you play ever other aspect of the game. To say in this instance it works differently would not be following RAW or RAI.

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is how you play ever other aspect of the game. To say in this instance it works differently would not be following RAW or RAI.

Sigh.

You're still separating the RFPaaC from the "unless otherwise specified" and assuming that the latter only applies during SA.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:No they didn't. The common use of at this stage is now. "At this stage of the game Ireland have really got to pull out something big", a commonly heard phrase from Soccer pundits. English is defined by use and since most people use it to mean now or during this period. You have not got a leg to stand on.

And when you move on to the next stage, unless Ireland pulls out something big it doesn't change.

You mean there is another stage after the one first referenced?

liturgies of blood wrote:At that stage. Later on is not forbidden.

Find the rule lifting the restriction.
Or are you asserting that rules must specify they're ongoing?

Yad wrote:There is no need to find a rule to lift the restriction for the restriction itself is not being challenged. The rules should either explicitly say something to the effect of, 'for the remainder of this Assault phase', or the context of rule should strongly suggest it. For the purposes of SA, the first is obviously not in place, as to the second I do not see it as being a viable option.

I would say it's just as strongly suggested as anything to do with Wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:As they should be. Unless otherwise specified speaks directly to preventing the SA from destroying and RFPaaC the unit swept.

You have no basis for that assertion.
edit: You're assuming that based on the only way currently to "save" a unit being ATSKNF which interrupts and stops the SA.
That does not mean it is the only way nor does it mean it will be the only way in the future.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This is how you play ever other aspect of the game. To say in this instance it works differently would not be following RAW or RAI.

Sigh.

You're still separating the RFPaaC from the "unless otherwise specified" and assuming that the latter only applies during SA.

Do we agree

1. All necron models are RFPaac which triggers the EL rule.

2. Sweeping Advance is a stage.

3. Consolidation is another stage.

4. "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

During the SA stage, no special rule can save/rescue the unit during the SA stage unless it specifies like ATSKNF. Nothing can stop these necrons from dying during SA.

5. Restrictions defined as being for a particular stage, end when then stage ends.

6. Stages end. Start of turn, ends. Start of phase, ends. Actions within a phase, end.

We have chopped the rule into itsy bitsy pieces and examined every part. Nothing is stopping an EL roll at the end of phase.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do we agree

Obviously not.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do we agree

Obviously not.

which one?

nosferatu1001 wrote:It might be because it has nothing to do with the context of the rule?

(not answerting for Rigeld, just trying to explain the issue)

Then I'd suggest you're doing it wrong (understanding the context that is). At this stage clearly references the limited time that a unit has to prevent themselves from being swept. They can only do so if they have a specific rule that allows them to ignore the effects (destruction and subsequent RFPaaC) of a SA.

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do we agree

Obviously not.

which one?

The way you worded #5.

5. Restrictions defined as being for a particular stage, end when then stage ends.

I don't agree that it's worded only for the SA stage. I don't agree that it needs to specify it is an ongoing effect.
I don't agree that the RFP is completely separate from the "unless otherwise specified".

Therefore I don't agree with your conclusion.

But since I'll probably be insulted again I don't know why I bothered to post. It's my fault though. Sorry for keeping the thread alive as long as I did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:They can only do so if they have a specific rule that allows them to ignore the effects (destruction and subsequent RFPaaC) of a SA.

You have yet to prove the bolded statement.

rigeld2 wrote:
The way you worded #5.

5. Restrictions defined as being for a particular stage, end when then stage ends.

I don't agree that it's worded only for the SA stage. I don't agree that it needs to specify it is an ongoing effect.
I don't agree that the RFP is completely separate from the "unless otherwise specified".

Therefore I don't agree with your conclusion.

Fair enough. So if I could prove that "at this stage" means "during this stage". And "at this stage" is a timeframe. That would convince you?

If the rule said "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit during this stage" that would change your mind?

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:There is no need to find a rule to lift the restriction for the restriction itself is not being challenged. The rules should either explicitly say something to the effect of, 'for the remainder of this Assault phase', or the context of rule should strongly suggest it. For the purposes of SA, the first is obviously not in place, as to the second I do not see it as being a viable option.

I would say it's just as strongly suggested as anything to do with Wounds.

We're certainly going to disagree on that one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:As they should be. Unless otherwise specified speaks directly to preventing the SA from destroying and RFPaaC the unit swept.

You have no basis for that assertion.

What does a SA do? It destroys the swept unit removing them from play as casualties. Unless otherwise specified the unit cannot prevent this destruction from occurring. Given the overall context of the SA rule mechanic there is no reason to think that the SA rule prevents any other rules from being executed after the SA has been resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:edit: You're assuming that based on the only way currently to "save" a unit being ATSKNF which interrupts and stops the SA.
That does not mean it is the only way nor does it mean it will be the only way in the future.

Yes, based upon the actual rule in SA that governs how a unit can avoid being swept, coupled with the only rule in the game that actually does this, I have concluded that this is what is meant with regards to saving or rescuing a unit from SA. I would be hesitant to base my current stance on a rule as to what may or may not occur in the future. Should a BRB or Codex FAQ explicitly say that EL cannot be used to return to play a EL model that has been RFPaaC, then I will adjust accordingly. Till then, the rules are quite plain to me.

-Yad

Yad wrote:What does a SA do? It destroys the swept unit removing them from play as casualties. Unless otherwise specified the unit cannot prevent this destruction from occurring. Given the overall context of the SA rule mechanic there is no reason to think that the SA rule prevents any other rules from being executed after the SA has been resolved.

You're inserting words. The SA rules do not include the bolded statement.

Yes, based upon the actual rule in SA that governs how a unit can avoid being swept, coupled with the only rule in the game that actually does this, I have concluded that this is what is meant with regards to saving or rescuing a unit from SA. I would be hesitant to base my current stance on a rule as to what may or may not occur in the future. Should a BRB or Codex FAQ explicitly say that EL cannot be used to return to play a EL model that has been RFPaaC, then I will adjust accordingly. Till then, the rules are quite plain to me.

Yes, when you re-write the rule as you did above I can see how you'd make that connection.
That's not what the actual rule says however.

And again, I'm done. For real this time.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:What does a SA do? It destroys the swept unit removing them from play as casualties. Unless otherwise specified the unit cannot prevent this destruction from occurring. Given the overall context of the SA rule mechanic there is no reason to think that the SA rule prevents any other rules from being executed after the SA has been resolved.

You're inserting words. The SA rules do not include the bolded statement.

Yes, based upon the actual rule in SA that governs how a unit can avoid being swept, coupled with the only rule in the game that actually does this, I have concluded that this is what is meant with regards to saving or rescuing a unit from SA. I would be hesitant to base my current stance on a rule as to what may or may not occur in the future. Should a BRB or Codex FAQ explicitly say that EL cannot be used to return to play a EL model that has been RFPaaC, then I will adjust accordingly. Till then, the rules are quite plain to me.

Yes, when you re-write the rule as you did above I can see how you'd make that connection.
That's not what the actual rule says however.

And again, I'm done. For real this time.

It's not what the rule says, but it means the same thing. If you were more familiar with the phrase it would be clear. Here's another link: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+this+stage

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:They can only do so if they have a specific rule that allows them to ignore the effects (destruction and subsequent RFPaaC) of a SA.

You have yet to prove the bolded statement.

That's what doesn't make sense to me. I would love to know how you can justify that the 'save or rescued' does not refer to being destroyed and removed by SA.

Surely you have to acknowledge that the end result of a successful SA roll is the destruction and removal of the affected unit. If you can't agree to that, then I'm at a loss. The SA rule specifies that you can't save or rescue the unit unless the unit has a specific rule that allows them to do so. Save and rescue from what? From being swept. What happens if they are swept? They are destroyed and RFPaaC. Ergo, you are being saved and rescued from destruction and removal. The context of the rule indicates that it is the action of being destroyed and removed that you cannot prevent unless you have a specific rule. ATSKNF, the only rule that actually prevents SA, backs this up.

SA has a specific start and a specific finish. At that stage (i.e., when SA is being resolved), you need a specific rule to avoid it.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:What does a SA do? It destroys the swept unit removing them from play as casualties. Unless otherwise specified the unit cannot prevent this destruction from occurring. Given the overall context of the SA rule mechanic there is no reason to think that the SA rule prevents any other rules from being executed after the SA has been resolved.

You're inserting words. The SA rules do not include the bolded statement.

Yes, the rule does not say that, but basic reading comprehension ought to lead you there.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yes, based upon the actual rule in SA that governs how a unit can avoid being swept, coupled with the only rule in the game that actually does this, I have concluded that this is what is meant with regards to saving or rescuing a unit from SA. I would be hesitant to base my current stance on a rule as to what may or may not occur in the future. Should a BRB or Codex FAQ explicitly say that EL cannot be used to return to play a EL model that has been RFPaaC, then I will adjust accordingly. Till then, the rules are quite plain to me.

Yes, when you re-write the rule as you did above I can see how you'd make that connection.
That's not what the actual rule says however.

And again, I'm done. For real this time.

That's nonsense. I'm taking the RAW in regards to SA, noting the part about 'otherwise specified', finding a rule that actually fits the exemption to a 'T' and using that as the gold standard. To you, that is somehow re-writing the rule.You'remaking it much more convoluted then it needs to be. Bottom line is, your way ends up partially breaking the EL rule, even more so now that 6th edition has included the RFPaaC in the SA rule. The only way you can avoid that is to twist the phrase 'at this stage' to cover the remainder of the Assault phase. Unfortunately this completely ignore the overriding context of the SA rule and the precedent set by the ATSKNF rule (which demonstrates what it is meant to save or rescue a unit from SA).

-Yad

Yad wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:They can only do so if they have a specific rule that allows them to ignore the effects (destruction and subsequent RFPaaC) of a SA.

You have yet to prove the bolded statement.

That's what doesn't make sense to me. I would love to know how you can justify that the 'save or rescued' does not refer to being destroyed and removed by SA.

Surely you have to acknowledge that the end result of a successful SA roll is the destruction and removal of the affected unit. If you can't agree to that, then I'm at a loss. The SA rule specifies that you can't save or rescue the unit unless the unit has a specific rule that allows them to do so. Save and rescue from what? From being swept. What happens if they are swept? They are destroyed and RFPaaC. Ergo, you are being saved and rescued from destruction and removal. The context of the rule indicates that it is the action of being destroyed and removed that you cannot prevent unless you have a specific rule. ATSKNF, the only rule that actually prevents SA, backs this up.

SA has a specific start and a specific finish. At that stage (i.e., when SA is being resolved), you need a specific rule to avoid it.

-Yad

He is not familiar with the phrase "at this stage" so he has some odd understanding of it. No argument will change that.

"At this stage" means right now, during this stage.
"At this time" means right now, during this time.

Until he can grasp this, you won't be able to convince him that the restriction on saving/rescuing doesn't somehow extend forever.

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote:Rigeld did not respond to my point he sidestepped it.

That's false. Your refusal to accept my response as valid isn't my concern. I haven't sidestepped anything.

How does your response relate to my example of using "at this stage" to mean now in a day to day example.

liturgies of blood wrote:The common use of at this stage is now. "At this stage of the game Ireland have really got to pull out something big", a commonly heard phrase from Soccer pundits. English is defined by use and since most people use it to mean now or during this period. You have not got a leg to stand on.

rigeld2 wrote:And when you move on to the next stage, unless Ireland pulls out something big it doesn't change.

They don't have to pull out something big now. The game can continue on and as soon as they do pull out something big the "restriction" is lifted.
As I said - I didn't sidestep anything. Please retract the statement so I can continue ignoring the thread until/unless it's FAQed.

What? Honestly what the hell are you talking about?
You have done it again. The "something big"? Dude seriously that is an example of how people use the phrase "at this stage". Not an analogous situation.
I will retract nothing, you have misrepresented me again. There is no restriction, there is no limit in the game. It is an example of how people use a phrase.


Here is another sporting example of how the phrase is used.

7 mins to go 6 points in it. Meath might need a goal at this stage.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The way you worded #5.

5. Restrictions defined as being for a particular stage, end when then stage ends.

I don't agree that it's worded only for the SA stage. I don't agree that it needs to specify it is an ongoing effect.
I don't agree that the RFP is completely separate from the "unless otherwise specified".

Therefore I don't agree with your conclusion.

Fair enough. So if I could prove that "at this stage" means "during this stage". And "at this stage" is a timeframe. That would convince you?

If the rule said "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit during this stage" that would change your mind?

If you could prove to me with rules, that "at this stage" means "during this stage" without a shadow of doubt, it would convince me. If the rule said "during this stage" I would be on your side.

Note, blue shows up horribly against the dark grey background, that's why I switched it to orange.