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.

How does sweeping advance remove models as casualties?

I know you're just being pedantic, don't make me get a dictionary out, I don't wanna' be that guy.

You know, that guy that just assumes the people he's having a discussion with are idiots and has to get a dictionary to read from so that there's no confusion about a word (and group of words) that everyone knows the definition of but are too stubborn to be swayed.

Everything that is listed under sweeping advance is "removed as casualties". Both by the context and language used in the rest of the book as well as by people who, you know, speak english.

RxGhost wrote:Everything that is listed under sweeping advance is "removed as casualties". Both by the context and language used in the rest of the book as well as by people who, you know, speak english.

No, they are destroyed. Not Removed as Casualties. The same way that Jaws of the World Wolf or a SAK that rolls a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! doesn't remove models as casualties.

And as an Englishman, I can tell you that in English, Casualty and Destoyed are very different. I don't know what it is like in Colonial English however, but the Rulebook is Written in British English

Oh, I'm sorry, now you're arguing that units destroyed are not removed as casualties?

Where do they go, vacation? The moon perhaps? Though Terra is more like their moon, which they call...the moon.

They are different here to.

Pedantic would be trying to say they are the same, especially given that the rules themselves say they are not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RxGhost wrote:Oh, I'm sorry, now you're arguing that units destroyed are not removed as casualties?

Where do they go, vacation? The moon perhaps? Though Terra is more like their moon, which they call...the moon.

They are simply removed from the game.

This _alone_ prevents them from being laid on their side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Very much like things that remove a model from the game ignore eternal warrior. Yes it is slain instantly, which, if pedantic, would be instantly killed which is instant death. However, this is NOT the same in game terms.

/shrug

So I guess in the part of the rulebook that says Remove Casualties, and then goes on to say that "casualties are not necessarily dead, they may be knocked unconscious , too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some way. In any case they are no longer fit to participate in battle." and Sweeping Advance says that "...it's members are left either dead, wounded or captured, or at best fleeing and hiding."

Since Remove Casualties says they're dead, and Sweeping Advance says their dead, I think we can come to the conclusion that models which are killed by sweeping advance are, in fact, dead and removed as casualties.

Models reduced to 0 wounds or removed as casualties benefit from We'll Be Back.

RxGhost wrote:
Models reduced to 0 wounds or removed as casualties benefit from We'll Be Back.

Sweeping Advance does not cause wound, nor does it remove models as casualties.

Sweeping advance rules also say "removed immediately" and "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage". Do not forget that part.

Also note: neither the word "casualties" nor "casualty" appears in the SA rules.

No, but it does say they're dead, and dead models are removed as casualties. Models that are removed as casualties get them some We'll Be Back.

/thread

RxGhost wrote:No, but it does say they're destroyed and to remove them immediately, only wounded models are removed as casualties. Models that are removed as casualties get them some We'll Be Back.

/thread

fixed.

Mahu wrote:What was thrown in my face though was "Codex > Rulebook". The WBB rules are specific in "otherwise removed as a casualty" which is what Sweeping Advance does.

I am sure this has already been mentioned (probably in this thread).

Sweeping Advance does NOT remove models as casualties. It simply removes models... so the specific WBB rule does NOT trump the Sweeping Advance rule.

Again, this has probably already been done in this thread (I've done it in others). I hope this clarifies it for you better.

Eight Ball wrote:The sweeping advance rule says that "No special rule may be used to save the unit at this stage" However, the thing is that even laying the models on their sides is saving them from being removed off of the board at that point, thus WBB is saving them from the part of SA that says to "remove the models from the board", so WBB cannot be used to save from SA

I still never heard any counter to how you can even place them on their side which is PART of the WBB rule, which (even placing them on their side) is "saving" them (from being removed off the board), which of course isn't allowed.

There is not one.

"They are instantly and irrevocably removed from the board, you can't prevent this with special rules"
"But I can use my special rule to leave them on the board on their sides making rolls right?"
/facepalm

RxGhost wrote:So I guess in the part of the rulebook that says Remove Casualties, and then goes on to say that "casualties are not necessarily dead, they may be knocked unconscious , too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some way. In any case they are no longer fit to participate in battle." and Sweeping Advance says that "...it's members are left either dead, wounded or captured, or at best fleeing and hiding."

Since Remove Casualties says they're dead, and Sweeping Advance says their dead, I think we can come to the conclusion that models which are killed by sweeping advance are, in fact, dead and removed as casualties.

Models reduced to 0 wounds or removed as casualties benefit from We'll Be Back.

Part of the problem here lies in quoting parts of rules (stay with me a momment, I'm not being condescending or trying to start a flame war)

WBB doesn't trigger when a model is dead, it is taken at the start of the Necron player's turn.

During the opposing player's turn, models that are reduced to 0 wounds are lain on their sides awaiting an attempt at WBB.

If all the models in a unit are reduced to 0 wounds, and there isn't a like unit within 6" or a tomb spyder within 12" (and another like unit on the table) they are ineligilbe to attempt WBB and are removed.

If a Necron unit has damaged models in the unit, and is forced to fall back, the damaged models fall back with the unit. They are still part of the unit at this point.

If a Necron unit is caught in a sweeping advance, the unit is destroyed and the unit is removed immediately. All the models in the unit, both undamaged ones and models that are awaiting an attemt to WBB are removed.

Not all that difficult.

Gorkamorka wrote:"They are instantly and irrevocably removed from the board, you can't prevent this with special rules"
"But I can use my special rule to leave them on the board on their sides making rolls right?"
/facepalm

Thats about the size of it.

Gorkamorka made me laugh...all this fuss and with 3 lines he puts it all into perspective.

See, that's the whole point though. You can't save models from Sweeping Advance, you can't use We'll Be Back until it's dead. How hard is this to understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh hey, we should sort this out over some Tekken 6 matches. I just picked that up for mah Xbizzle.

RxGhost wrote:See, that's the whole point though. You can't save models from Sweeping Advance, you can't use We'll Be Back until it's dead. How hard is this to understand?

It isn't hard to understand:
The models were destroyed and removed from play. They were not killed and are not elligable to use WBB, even if WBB was allowable in this case (it isn't).

Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

Care to try my Jack-6!?

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

kirsanth wrote:Also note: neither the word "casualties" nor "casualty" appears in the SA rules.

I want to repeat my call for a facepalm ork icon.
PLEASE?!?!

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

No, not 'as a casualty'. Just removed.

It's also an entirely moot point even if you were right, as WBB is a special rule and thus can't stop the removal (which prevents WBB from working later) anyway.

It doesn't work.

Gorkamorka wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

No, not 'as a casualty'. Just removed.

It's not a moot point, as WBB is a special rule and thus can't stop the removal (which prevents WBB from working later) anyway.

It doesn't work.

fixed.

kirsanth wrote:
fixed.

fixed first

Gorkamorka wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

No, not 'as a casualty'. Just removed.

It's also not a moot point even if you were right, as WBB is a special rule and thus can't stop the removal (which prevents WBB from working later) anyway.

It doesn't work.

fixed your fix.

You missed mine.

kirsanth wrote:
fixed your fix.

You missed mine.

I didn't, my 'moot point' was in refernece to the current discussion and that his argument was meaningless because in either case wbb would not work.
I agree that as a general rules point it isn't moot, and that straight removal vs casualties should be understood as distinct.

Back on topic: It doesn't work.

Back off topic, as this topic should die now. Moot is too often used in a manner that is self contradictory.

kirsanth wrote:Back off topic, as this topic should die now. Moot is too often used in a manner that is self contradictory.

The word moot and the modern english idiom moot point are different things, to be sure.

edit: huzzah, my 100th is entirely pointless and offtopic.
A moot post, as it were.

And therein lies my issue.
A moot point can be either needing debate or not for debate.
The idiom comes from people not wanting or not being able to actually debate.

A lazy practice, IMHO.

Dern colonials and their mixing up of the Queens English