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.

While I see your point Fafnir13, the fact is for a SA to be made, a fail back has to occur first. Even if the Overlord is caught by it, you still have to remove the tokens because the fall back occurred. Pg 27 also covers this quite nicely. No save or special rule may save the unit. Not even St Celistian can come back from a SA or DoG, EL is no different.

Here's how it works in 6th Edition:

1. Necrons with RP (A) and Necrons with EL (B) are in a unit
2. some Necrons with RP are killed in combat (C) some Necrons with EL are killed in combat (D). RP counters are placed for (C) and EL counters for (D).
3. The unit loses combat and fails it's moral check - Oh nooo!
4. The unit is falling back so RP counters (C) are removed.
5. The winner's unit attempts Sweeping Advance and wins the roll off - Oh nooo!
6. RP necrons (A) and EL (B) are removed as casualties (at this stage!). Place EL counters for (B).
7. The winning unit makes a D6 consolidation move.
8. End of Phase - Necron player makes rolls for EL counters (B) and (D). EL models may be returned to play.

Anyone talking about 4th or 5th edition may try their luck resurrecting the threads for those editions of the game. In 6th edition the rule has been CHANGED and it is even clearer now how SA should work regarding EL.

BRB denies the necrons their EL special rule as its a special rule that (when alls said and done) allows the models to return to play. The rules for SA specifically tell us that it is impossible for them to return.

I play Necrons aswell, but thems the brakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
After a quick think here, I do have to add something rather humorous involving this exact situation.

Ill humor the other side for a moment. Say your unit and Overlord are caught in a SA. You would remove your unit and place the one EL token. Lets say he passes. However, since your unit was removed from play and the rules for EL state that you must place him back into coherency with that squadron... where does he go? I would default to the last paragraph in that instance.

From my understanding, when a necron with everliving gets removed as casualty (meaning he really did die) from a sweeping advance (fullfilling the SA requirement of removing them as causalties) but he gets to place an EL token where the model died and at the end of the phase he gets to roll for EL.

I dont see the conflict between everliving and sweeping advance. I think the problem is some people view EL as a save (to prevent from dying/destroyed) instead of the model actually dying and then resurrecting later on in the game

Excellent way to put it. The model is not being saved. The only reason the Necron player gets to put a token is because he went and got killed in the first place.

Xzerios wrote:Ill humor the other side for a moment. Say your unit and Overlord are caught in a SA. You would remove your unit and place the one EL token. Lets say he passes. However, since your unit was removed from play and the rules for EL state that you must place him back into coherency with that squadron... where does he go? I would default to the last paragraph in that instance.

That got FAQ'ed.

Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, us wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls?

A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out.

While talking to the room mate, he swayed me to a neutral point. I agree to disagree at this point. A FaQ (which I will have to say wont happen for this issue) will have to come out for the BRB outlining the Divine Intervention and Ever Living specifically from working during SA/DoG. At this point, Ill take the advantage for Everliving working after a SA as codex > BRB at this moment.

I do want to state that I still believe that EL doesnt work on SA/DoG, but meh at this point.
(Derp the 3" EL from a wiped out squad. Woulda saved us a good half hour talk)

shock_at wrote:From my understanding, when a necron with everliving gets removed as casualty (meaning he really did die) from a sweeping advance (fullfilling the SA requirement of removing them as causalties) but he gets to place an EL token where the model died and at the end of the phase he gets to roll for EL.

I dont see the conflict between everliving and sweeping advance. I think the problem is some people view EL as a save (to prevent from dying/destroyed) instead of the model actually dying and then resurrecting later on in the game

Here is the problem you are missing the part about no special rule may save the unit unless specified.

Here is the rule, "unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage ; for them the battle is over." The punctuation is key to the sentence.


It is not a save it is a special rule that does not say it works after, during or in conjunction with SA. Lets take a look at that last little section, you know the one after the semicolon. What part of that says that EL would work?

With atsknf we at least have a way of knowing how it works with SA, becuase it specfies what to do in the instance of SA. Unlike EL, place a counter whenever a model is rfpaac, which is a blanket statement, not at all more specific then SA.

But everliving is not a special rule that rescues the unit, its a special rule that occurs when a model with EL dies. The model has to die first before an EL token is placed. For something to be resurrected, it has to be dead

shock_at wrote:But everliving is not a special rule that rescues the unit, its a special rule that occurs when a model with EL dies. The model has to die first before an EL token is placed. For something to be resurrected, it has to be dead

the unit was destroyed

the unit is no longer destroyed

You have just saved the unit. QED

nosferatu1001 wrote:

shock_at wrote:But everliving is not a special rule that rescues the unit, its a special rule that occurs when a model with EL dies. The model has to die first before an EL token is placed. For something to be resurrected, it has to be dead

the unit was destroyed

the unit is no longer destroyed

You have just saved the unit. QED

My opinion is that this exemplifies what's wrong with the opposing viewpoint. The rule preventing any 'special rule' from being used to 'save' a unit, restricts such rules from being used in direct response to a SA. There truly is no way (aside from ATSKNF) to stop a unit from being RFPaaC due to a SA. In no way, shape, or form is RP/EL considered a Save. It is not rolled with the intention of preventing (or as a direct response to) a SA. Meaning it does not fall within the 'unless otherwise specified' clause of the SA rule. In other words, EL does not (indeed cannot) stop a SA from occurring, and SA cannot remove and subsequently prevent the Necron player from rolling for EL.

I've never seen a contradiction between the two rule mechanics. I do think it odd that 6th edition has changed how models that are 'killed' by an SA are treated (though frankly I see no difference between RFP and RFPaaC).

I do understand where you're coming from. I simply disagree with it.

-Yad

You are running into a common English problem: 1 word with different meanings coming up in the same thought. A saving throw is allowed to stop a model from suffering a wound. A save is an abbreviated way of saying a saving throw. It is a noun. Take your save, he gets a save, he has a save.

To save is to interject to protect something or protect them from danger or harm. It is a verb. Funny story, saving throws save. Saves save. Special rules also save.

EL may not be a save, but it is a special rule that saves a unit. An IC is a unit unto themselves. Save the verb, not save the noun. Nothing can save (the verb) them now, not even a special rule. EL not being a save is irrelevant because it is still a special rule attempting to save a unit from destruction.

Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

Yes, but WBB didn't work if the squad was dead anyway and there was no "ever living" aspect in that version. While I'm not agreeing that EL is allowed via SA, using that reference point is invalid since WBB was more like RP than EL.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

References to WBB are irrelevant as that rule no longer exists. I find your reference to capitalization ironic

My opinion is that EL does not prevent an SA from occurring. While I would think you agree with that you also wish to assert that rolling for EL at the end of the Assault phase (after the SA has been resolved) somehow goes back and invalidates the SA. I don't think that's right. The SA fires off, the unit is removed (as a casualty for those that care about that), and no rule can be invoked (aside from ATSKNF) to prevent that.

So what do you do with the EL tokens? They [EL tokens] can't be removed by a failed Morale check. They can't be removed by a successful SA. Only the RP/EL rules themselves specifies how the tokens can be removed. I guess that if you're trying to stretch SA to cover the remainder of the Assault phase then you would say that the EL tokens would be lost. Which would run counter the rule in the 'cron codex.

-Yad

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Here is the problem you are missing the part about no special rule may save the unit unless specified.

Here is the rule, "unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage ; for them the battle is over." The punctuation is key to the sentence.


It is not a save it is a special rule that does not say it works after, during or in conjunction with SA. Lets take a look at that last little section, you know the one after the semicolon. What part of that says that EL would work?

With atsknf we at least have a way of knowing how it works with SA, becuase it specfies what to do in the instance of SA. Unlike EL, place a counter whenever a model is rfpaac, which is a blanket statement, not at all more specific then SA.

1) Is everliving a save? No
2) Does it occur "at this stage"? No
3) Do I play necrons? No
4) Do I hate necrons? A little
5) Does EL allow a model to come back after a SA? Yes

The at this stage is very important. It means right now, so that would prevent any FNP or similar regeneration of wounds rules coming into play. EL on the other hand happens at the end of the phase. To make it clearer, there is the SA stage, that happens, then there is the consolidation stage, that happens, then there is the EL stage.

For something to be unable to prevent SA death it must be both at that stage, which everliving is and not a save. If there is a rule that allows you to come back from any time you have been removed as a casualty, that would overrule the general SA stay remove as casualty. EL is specific enough to do that.

Let me preface this by saying I am a Blood Angels player. I run a DoA assault force and my roommate plays Necrons. So knowing that, you know there is no bias towards Necrons from me.

Reanimation Protocols do not work on a sweeping advance.

Everliving, however, most certainly does work. The everliving rule is specifically different than reanimation protocols and have particular timing rules associated with them. A unit with everliving can be swept just like any other necron unit, however, once swept, the necron is removed as a casualty and a counter is placed in his place. Everliving is rolled at the end of the phase AFTER the sweeping advance takes place. So, yes, the unit with everliving is caught in the sweep, but he gets a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase.

The trick is to consolidate in such a manner as to prevent the necron opponent from reanimating within 3" of the counter (keep your unit in such a way as to not be able to reanimate within 3" of it because he will be within 1" of your unit). If you can do this, and it's not as hard as it sounds, he can't reanimate. If not, he has a chance to get back up.

Yad - "at this stage" does not mean "this instant". It means that, by the time you reach this point NOTHING can save the unit UNLESS it specifies that it does
Which EL does not do

liturgies of blood wrote:

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:

Here is the problem you are missing the part about no special rule may save the unit unless specified.

Here is the rule, "unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage ; for them the battle is over." The punctuation is key to the sentence.


It is not a save it is a special rule that does not say it works after, during or in conjunction with SA. Lets take a look at that last little section, you know the one after the semicolon. What part of that says that EL would work?

With atsknf we at least have a way of knowing how it works with SA, becuase it specfies what to do in the instance of SA. Unlike EL, place a counter whenever a model is rfpaac, which is a blanket statement, not at all more specific then SA.

1) Is everliving a save? No
2) Does it occur "at this stage"? No
3) Do I play necrons? No
4) Do I hate necrons? A little
5) Does EL allow a model to come back after a SA? Yes

The at this stage is very important. It means right now, so that would prevent any FNP or similar regeneration of wounds rules coming into play. EL on the other hand happens at the end of the phase. To make it clearer, there is the SA stage, that happens, then there is the consolidation stage, that happens, then there is the EL stage.

For something to be unable to prevent SA death it must be both at that stage, which everliving is and not a save. If there is a rule that allows you to come back from any time you have been removed as a casualty, that would overrule the general SA stay remove as casualty. EL is specific enough to do that.

Does EL say anywhere in its text that it works regardless of how the model was removed? Does EL say that even if a SA happens place the token? Does EL have any language such as the last two questions I pose? You are putting to much empahsis on one area, and not enough on others. At this stage for instance, does not denote timing for anything in the game. Otherwise, it would have its own sub-phase in the rules, which it doesn't. There are two sub-phases in thre assault phase, charge and fight. I would like to point out again the last little tidbit at the end of the rule, which I have shown is a part of the rule, that any unit that is caught by a SA "for them the battle is over." Please cite specific text from EL that either says that is will work against SA specifically, or allows a model that the fight is over for to come back.....

Furthermore, is EL specific enough to overrule SA? Here is your problem as I pointed out last time, EL is very general in its application. SA is very specific about what happens, and what can or cannot happen, what rules can and what rules cannot do . Just because there is a rule in a codex does not make it more specific then the rules in the BRB.

The confusion is that players are trying to say "everliving doesn't save you from a sweeping advance." Technically, it doesn't, nor does the everliving rule INTEND to prevent a sweeping advance.

If a unit contains a character with EL, and they fail the roll off, they are swept. The unit is destroyed. They can't reanimate because the rule for reanimation protocols is specific in this that if a unit is totally wiped out, remove all counters from them.

EL works differently. The character with EL is removed as a casualty just like the rest of the unit, however, a counter is placed where he is removed. Unit consolidates, and then at the end of the assault phase, the Necron player gets to roll for EL. You most definitely get EL on a sweeping advance and the rules are quite clear when you look at the timing of the effect.

Heres the problem until a new codex with some niffty rule comes out for the haters to move on to ,no matter what you say re EL and SA it wont be accepted

This will go round in circles, for me and the people i play and the people they play EL works even after SA by RAW, so have fun arguing this until you get a new codex to hate

snakel wrote:Heres the problem until a new codex with some niffty rule comes out for the haters to move on to ,no matter what you say re EL and SA it wont be accepted

This will go round in circles, for me and the people i play and the people they play EL works even after SA by RAW, so have fun arguing this until you get a new codex to hate

Snakel, you keep on saying something is RAW when you actually mean "This Is How We Play It" or RAI.
ATSKNF is the precedent that shows required level of detail for anything to work against SA. EL doesn't have that level of detail, so by RAW it doesn't work. Now, you're free to play it as you wish in your group, but if you want to argue RAW, give rule quotes with page numbers.

Luide, everyone here is arguing "TIHWPI". There is no clear cut answer here. Which I found interesting when I looked it up.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
Does EL say anywhere in its text that it works regardless of how the model was removed? Does EL say that even if a SA happens place the token? Does EL have any language such as the last two questions I pose? You are putting to much empahsis on one area, and not enough on others. At this stage for instance, does not denote timing for anything in the game. Otherwise, it would have its own sub-phase in the rules, which it doesn't. There are two sub-phases in thre assault phase, charge and fight. I would like to point out again the last little tidbit at the end of the rule, which I have shown is a part of the rule, that any unit that is caught by a SA "for them the battle is over." Please cite specific text from EL that either says that is will work against SA specifically, or allows a model that the fight is over for to come back.....

Furthermore, is EL specific enough to overrule SA? Here is your problem as I pointed out last time, EL is very general in its application. SA is very specific about what happens, and what can or cannot happen, what rules can and what rules cannot do . Just because there is a rule in a codex does not make it more specific then the rules in the BRB.

It doesn't need to, once it says removed as a casualty then you are grand. Does SA remove a model as a casualty?

Luide wrote:

snakel wrote:Heres the problem until a new codex with some niffty rule comes out for the haters to move on to ,no matter what you say re EL and SA it wont be accepted

This will go round in circles, for me and the people i play and the people they play EL works even after SA by RAW, so have fun arguing this until you get a new codex to hate

Snakel, you keep on saying something is RAW when you actually mean "This Is How We Play It" or RAI.
ATSKNF is the precedent that shows required level of detail for anything to work against SA. EL doesn't have that level of detail, so by RAW it doesn't work. Now, you're free to play it as you wish in your group, but if you want to argue RAW, give rule quotes with page numbers.

Ehm, the difference is that ATSKNF is a direct response to sweeping advance. Ever living has nothing to do with it, sweeping advance still works against them in that it DOES remove them as a casualty.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - yet the exact same mechanism (no special rule) prevented WBB from working. EXACT SAME RULE.

Not all uses of the word "!save" denote a "Save". Note the capitalisation of one and not the other.

I would call this argument the "EDITION CONFUSION" argument. WBB is not the same rule as Everliving whatsoever. It has a different name, and different wording. The Sweeping Advance rule from the BRB has changed. It's not the same wording either.

Rules in Warhammer 40k can change between editions.

Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Happyjew wrote:Dave, the problem is, according to the fourth ed rulebook, the reason WBB didn't work is not because the unit was not removed as casualties, but because it was a special rule that saved the unit. Also, when WBB "saved" the unit was even later than EL.

Well, it didn't save the unit they just couldn't use WBB because the squad was demolish by something that did not allow armor saves. That's really the biggest reason. That and they specifically called it out in the rulebook as well. But that is not the case anymore in many respects. Comparing WBB to EL "at all" is just plain the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to argue on this point.

Kevin there were a number of reasons why they could not use WBB; they were not removed as casualties, they were removed by something that did not allow armour saves, but most specifically:

4th edition rulebook wrote: No Invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back special rule) can save the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over

This is where the hang up is (I think). People are arguing that EL does not "save the unit at this stage" even though it happens even earlier than WBB.

Edit: Even then technically the only things that did not allow WBB were close combat attacks that ignored armour saves, weapons with Strength 2x Toughness, and no like model within 6". Therefore, one could have argued WBB would have worked, except for the fact of he little bit I quoted.

Happyjew wrote:Kevin there were a number of reasons why they could not use WBB; they were not removed as casualties, they were removed by something that did not allow armour saves, but most specifically:

4th edition rulebook wrote: No Invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back special rule) can save the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over

This is where the hang up is (I think). People are arguing that EL does not "save the unit at this stage" even though it happens even earlier than WBB.

Edit: Even then technically the only things that did not allow WBB were close combat attacks that ignored armour saves, weapons with Strength 2x Toughness, and no like model within 6". Therefore, one could have argued WBB would have worked, except for the fact of he little bit I quoted.

I know why they couldn't use WBB, and stated it. But as I said, WBB was MUCH more restrictive on when it was allowed as opposed to EL. Which is why I'm saying bringing up WBB "at all" is a terrible way to argue the "SA works against EL and they're off the table" side of this argument. I'm not disagreeing with either side here, but I definitely see the point people are making.

You have to remember though, WBB was closer to RP and functions much the same, in this situation. EL is a similar but whole new animal, even compared to RP.

Well, even back in those times there were abilities that caused no wounds but still didn't allow WBB, such as JoTWW and SaG. Again though that's irrelevant for this time.

Excuse me, I thought we were talking about 6th edition? I think it's best to just not even bring up older editions.

I feel like I'm typing to a brick wall here. You do get to make an EL roll after a sweeping advance and the rules as written are perfectly clear on this. It isn't even up for a debate. The EL is not a special rule stating that the target of the sweep won't be removed as a casualty. the character with EL is in fact removed as a casualty. He has a chance to get back up at the end of the assault phase provided he can do so within 3" of the counter and not within 1" of an enemy model.