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.

On GW website....


"'Reanimate This.' Powerful close-combat units like Terminators are great at chewing through Necrons in close combat. High Strength power weapons are great at taking down Necron units, but beware, because the Necrons can still get back up using their Reanimation Protocols, which can make a quick and easy combat into a protracted melee that you might not win. Go into combat with full force, cause as many wounds as possible and make sure you win the combat by a hefty margin. The negative modifiers to the Necron's Leadership should cause them to break from combat, which means they lose all their Reanimation Protocol markers"

Lose all their Reanimation Protocol markers, not their ever-living markers...

Nos, you missed my posts full context. You are wrong is the short of it. Even if you can be placed in coherency with yourself (you cant) the necron rule specifically states you must be placed in coherency with a model that is still in the unit. You can not be in coherency with only a model that was reanimated. Its in the necron rule for everliving and rp.

No, Coherency is not applicable to a single model. Reread my quote. Note that coherency is only required when you have multiple models, as it is defined by you being no more than 2" away from a nother model in the unit.

You must be in coherency (does not apply, you are now a single model member of the unit) with the unit (you are with the unit, as you are with yourself)

That part ceases to apply because coherency is not applicable to single model units

Except that the necron rule does not work that way... Reread rp and everliving...

I have done. Repeatedly.

"it must be returned to play,...., in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols"

Coherency does not apply to single model units. Seriously, can you actually read what Coherency is? You have to have no more than 2" between you and another member of the unit. There IS no other member of the unit, so by definition you are in coherency.

Finish the quote, nos. it says in rp that models must make coherency with model that was not returned to play this turn.

WHich has nothing to do with Everliving, that rule only applies to RP counters.

Additionally one model is always in coherency with itself. If you disagree, please post a rule explaining so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the lord does not have to join - the Lord has to be *placed in coherency with* the unit. There is NO coherency required when you are a single model unit, by the definition of Coherency - coherency is inapplicable with single model units.

That's the debate! The EL rule states if the lord that comes back was previously joined to a unit he MUST be placed in unit coherency with said unit, per the RP rules. The EL rule further states if the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, the model is removed from play.

This is the conundrum. The lord must rejoin the unit he was with but cannot since the unit is destroyed as mandated by the rule. This results in the lord not being placed thus removed from play. To complicate matters, EL has a separate entry for when the lord has not joined a unit. The implication is the lord that joined the unit lives and dies by the unit.

Yes, we all understand the intent of the rule but the verbiage is the issue. It'll be FAQed for sure.

The conflict appears to be in the wording "that unit." Does "that unit" refer to the unit that the IC joined or the unit formed by the IC and the unit he joined?

Considering that the rules state that once an IC joins a unit he become part of the unit, I think that the lord can stand up by himself.

There's a good case to be made for the alternative interpretation.

TGA - and the debate is settled because coherency is the degenerate case for single model units. As soon as you place the model you are "in coherency" with your unit, as you have fulfilled the requirements of coherency: there is no more than 2" in between you and any other member of the unit.

If you claim otherwise please find another model frmo that unit that the EL model is NOT in coherency with. I'll wait.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - and the debate is settled because coherency is the degenerate case for single model units. As soon as you place the model you are "in coherency" with your unit, as you have fulfilled the requirements of coherency: there is no more than 2" in between you and any other member of the unit.

The rule doesn't state "...in coherency with his unit...", the rule states "...in coherency with that unit..." (Necron codex, page 29). The issue isn't the lord isn't in coherency with his unit, the issue is, by RAW, the lord MUST get in unit coherency (as detailed by RP) with THAT unit he was with previously. Since he cannot be placed in unit coherency with THAT unit, the rest of EL kicks in and states since the lord cannot be placed for any reason, it is removed from the table.

THAT unit , what the one he is a NORMAL MEMBER of? (p49)

Yes, he IS in chernecy with THAT unit, because he is the only member of the unit left and is ALWAYS in coherency.

He is placed, and yet again youre wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:THAT unit , what the one he is a NORMAL MEMBER of? (p49)

Yes, he IS in chernecy with THAT unit, because he is the only member of the unit left and is ALWAYS in coherency.

He is placed, and yet again youre wrong.

Your use of "that" is taken out of context. "That" unit refers to the unit the lord joined. From the Necron codex:

Necron Codex, page 29, (my emphasis) wrote:
If the [EL] model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play...in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols.

"That unit", in this context, isn't the entire unit comprising of both the lord AND the unit he joined, just the unit the lord joined. The unit, in this discussion, no longer exists for the lord to join. However, the EL states he MUST rejoin the unit. The EL rule states if the model can't be placed for ANY reason, he's removed from play. Since the lord can't join THAT unit, he is removed from play.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:THAT unit , what the one he is a NORMAL MEMBER of? (p49)

Yes, he IS in chernecy with THAT unit, because he is the only member of the unit left and is ALWAYS in coherency.

He is placed, and yet again youre wrong.

Your use of "that" is taken out of context. "That" unit refers to the unit the lord joined. From the Necron codex:

Necron Codex, page 29, (my emphasis) wrote:
If the [EL] model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play...in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols.

"That unit", in this context, isn't the entire unit comprising of both the lord AND the unit he joined, just the unit the lord joined. The unit, in this discussion, no longer exists for the lord to join. However, the EL states he MUST rejoin the unit. The EL rule states if the model can't be placed for ANY reason, he's removed from play. Since the lord can't join THAT unit, he is removed from play.

If that unit still exists. If it no longer exists then that condition is void.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
If that unit still exists. If it no longer exists then that condition is void.

If only the rule stated that and that's the problem. The rule verbiage doesn't factor in the possibility the unit the lord joined no longer exists. By RAW, the rule forces the lord to rejoin the unit which doesn't exist since he can't do that additional rules stipulate the lord is removed from play.

Why does the ever living rule even exist if all these rules lawyers are trying to say it can never apply?

The purpose of the rule is for special characters in squads to get a last-ditch effort to return to the table. Denying them that is like not allowing the doom of malan'tai his invulnerable save (pre-faq). this argument shouldn't even be happening. I agree with nos 100% here.

I'd just like to point out that if EL and RP tokens are completely different, then the Resurrection Orb, and Phylactery don't affect models with EL (Since both these items affect RP rolls only). Either the EL token grants a Reanimation Protocol roll or it doesn't. If it does, then the wargear can affect the roll, and the roll is subject to all the restrictions listed in the RP rule, except where specified differently by the EL rule. Note that t if a model was part of a unit when it 'died', that EL assumes that the unit is still around. There is NO exception to the RP rule denying a roll if the unit is destroyed.

Lordhat wrote:I'd just like to point out that if EL and RP tokens are completely different, then the Resurrection Orb, and Phylactery don't affect models with EL (Since both these items affect RP rolls only). Either the EL token grants a Reanimation Protocol roll or it doesn't. If it does, then the wargear can affect the roll, and the roll is subject to all the restrictions listed in the RP rule, except where specified differently by the EL rule. Note that t if a model was part of a unit when it 'died', that EL assumes that the unit is still around. There is NO exception to the RP rule denying a roll if the unit is destroyed.

No. EL is resolved the same way as RP EXCEPT that the model returns to the table differently. Therefore the Orb does effect models with EL. And besides, if you were to look at the lord's special rules, you will find that he has both RP and EL.

Option 1.

/thread

I feel REALLY sorry for anyone who's running a Royal Court unit pre-FAQ and who gets an opponent who wants to

A) not agree all the models have a chance stand up in cases where the unit is wiped out.
B) not allow 4+ rolls from a Res Orb.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lordhat wrote:I'd just like to point out that if EL and RP tokens are completely different, then the Resurrection Orb, and Phylactery don't affect models with EL (Since both these items affect RP rolls only). Either the EL token grants a Reanimation Protocol roll or it doesn't. If it does, then the wargear can affect the roll, and the roll is subject to all the restrictions listed in the RP rule, except where specified differently by the EL rule. Note that t if a model was part of a unit when it 'died', that EL assumes that the unit is still around. There is NO exception to the RP rule denying a roll if the unit is destroyed.

No. EL is resolved the same way as RP EXCEPT that the model returns to the table differently. Therefore the Orb does effect models with EL. And besides, if you were to look at the lord's special rules, you will find that he has both RP and EL.

If EL is resolved in the same manner as RP, then when the model is attached to a squad, and that squad is wiped in a single phase, the model with EL is NOT eligible to stand up. There is absolutely no provision in EL that overrides RP's rule on wiped squads; There are a lot of presumptions in EL, but few hard rules. None of those rules ever states "Unlike RP, an EA counter lets the model attempt to roll even when it's squad is completely wiped out." As you state, the only real difference between EA and RP is how the model is physically placed on the table if the roll is successful, NOT the circumstances under which the roll can be attempted.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:I feel REALLY sorry for anyone who's running a Royal Court unit pre-FAQ and who gets an opponent who wants to

A) not agree all the models have a chance stand up in cases where the unit is wiped out.
B) not allow 4+ rolls from a Res Orb.

Welcome to YMDC, where we debate what the rules say, not necessarily how we intend to play them.

Lordhat wrote:

Welcome to YMDC, where we debate what the rules say, not necessarily how we intend to play them.

I joined YDMC 5 years ago, so bit of a late welcome.

I still feel sorry for those players running Court models either split or as a Court, because the RAW can easily be read to not back up the RAI.
In RAW vs RAI this is an unusual case because we actually have a verifiable quote from the Codex author in an official GW publication (that sometimes contains hard rules itself) what the RAI is for EL.

Lordhat wrote:
If EL is resolved in the same manner as RP, then when the model is attached to a squad, and that squad is wiped in a single phase, the model with EL is NOT eligible to stand up. There is absolutely no provision in EL that overrides RP's rule on wiped squads; There are a lot of presumptions in EL, but few hard rules. None of those rules ever states "Unlike RP, an EA counter lets the model attempt to roll even when it's squad is completely wiped out." As you state, the only real difference between EA and RP is how the model is physically placed on the table if the roll is successful, NOT the circumstances under which the roll can be attempted.

A valid RAW interpretation, in noting that the White Dwarf article is pretty conclusive that RAI the Everliving rule is indeed supposed to be read or at least implys that unlike RP, an EA counter lets the model attempt to roll even when it's squad is completely wiped out.

The chance to replace the WBB rules with a straightforward easy to understand ' equivalent ' - Muffed .

Could be put right with a speedy FAQ

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

Welcome to YMDC, where we debate what the rules say, not necessarily how we intend to play them.

I joined YDMC 5 years ago, so bit of a late welcome.

I still feel sorry for those players running Court models either split or as a Court, because the RAW can easily be read to not back up the RAI.
In RAW vs RAI this is an unusual case because we actually have a verifiable quote from the Codex author in an official GW publication (that sometimes contains hard rules itself) what the RAI is for EL.

Lordhat wrote:
If EL is resolved in the same manner as RP, then when the model is attached to a squad, and that squad is wiped in a single phase, the model with EL is NOT eligible to stand up. There is absolutely no provision in EL that overrides RP's rule on wiped squads; There are a lot of presumptions in EL, but few hard rules. None of those rules ever states "Unlike RP, an EA counter lets the model attempt to roll even when it's squad is completely wiped out." As you state, the only real difference between EA and RP is how the model is physically placed on the table if the roll is successful, NOT the circumstances under which the roll can be attempted.

A valid RAW interpretation, in noting that the White Dwarf article is pretty conclusive that RAI the Everliving rule is indeed supposed to be read or at least implys that unlike RP, an EA counter lets the model attempt to roll even when it's squad is completely wiped out.

I agree; EL is senseless if you don't believe it was attempting to do exactly what Matt Ward says it does in the WD battle report. However, I bemoan the fact that GW has YET to hire even a minimally competent technical writer to proof their author's rules. Perhaps we would get codicies that at least work internally as well as with the BGB. Making sure every rule in every codex works with every other rule in every other codex would be far too expensive for their business model ("just good enough"). But at the very least, making sure a codex actually says what it's intended to say should be an item of importance.