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.

time wizard wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: no where does it say this token is part of the unit. this counter this object we are referring to as a RP/or EL token.

The token represents a model that is part of the unit.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:the removed model put a lasting effect on his unit even though that model no longer exists. this is only due to the faq.

Let me see if I get this. I have a 10 man warrior squad with an attached overseer. In the shooting phase the overseer and 4 warriors are 'killed'. The all get to roll no 4+ for RP and EL because the overseer has a res orb. The overseer fails his roll and is removed, but all 4 warriors make it.
In the assault phase 5 warriors get killed. They now get to use the res orb for the RP roll because accoring to you the removed model put a lasting effect on the unit? So the res orb sorks for the entire game, even long after the character with the orb has been removed? Really?.

that phase boss. that phase read the faq even though i posted it here it is again

Q: If a model carrying a resurrection orb is removed as
a casualty, can you still benefit from it when rolling for
his, and his unit’s, Reanimation Protocol rolls that
phase? (p82)
A: Yes."

hey would you look at that

so the first part in the shooting is correct, the second i think is trollling





Automatically Appended Next Post:
ooooh page 21

Are you missing the reference to "his unit"? If he's not a part of the unit when he's "tokenized", then "his unit" is a null reference. He has to be part of "his unit" when tokenized.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:First, Jaws because its easier. Jaws does target the first unit in the line but it does not target the rest of the units of models who happen to be along that line. Additionally, for fun Dangerous Terrain. Your move holy man.

First, you can drop the sarcastic insults. I haven't thrown any your way. Thanks.

Fair enough for that example. It's irrelevant to my point, however - you cannot bring a model back without addressing the fact that the unit is being rescued. Unless you want to assert that a new unit is created, but that way lies madness.

Second, Your idomatic example is flawed and more proof of my point then yours. The word that allows the ongoing effect is not "At this point" it is "Start". With out the word Start : "my account will accrue overdraft charges at this point." Now you have a reference of one overdraft charge or charges without an ongoing effect happening at that moment. Again, the wording of SA does not lend itself to your idomatic reading.

Erm. No. "My account will accrue overdraft charges at this point." That is absolutely an ongoing reference by any common sense reading - without intervention, it will not stop.
"No save or special rule can rescue the unit at this [point]." is an absolute reference to an ongoing state - you can't intervene "unless otherwise specified"
The ball is rolling at this point. Your assertion is that the ball has stopped rolling an instant after it was declared rolling.
The shuttle was in space at this point. Your assertion is that the shuttle plummeted down to the ground after that point.

Actually it wasn't an insult, quite the opposite, its a quote by Dane Cook that I made in jest. Apologies, if you feel that I was actually insulting you.
And again no it speaks of this point in time it does not speak to the future. Any inferences that you draw about the future are your own.
All it says it right at this moment I cannot stop the overdraft charges. Not that they cannot be stopped going forward or that further overdraft charges will be added.
Much the same that SA references the here and now and nothing can stop it from happening in the here and now.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:The EL rules are very clear about what portion(s) of the RP rules you are supposed to use.

Agreed.
All of them, unless specified otherwise. Since EL is done "just as" RP.

Absolutely not. It's not that as you say, "EL is done "just as" RP. It's that EL rolls are done just as RP ones. A EL model that was part of a unit before it was removed as a casualty is, "returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols.". That's it. EL uses no other part of the RP rules. There is absolutely no statement in the EL rule mechanic or Necron FAQ that says you treat EL exactly like RP. The above are the only ways that EL is like RP. You even place the EL counter differently than you do the RP one.

RP: Place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit...
EL: Place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play.

kirsanth wrote:Not "Here are the ways it is the same".

But do it just as that, but here are differences.

This is one of those very few times where I would say that you are dead wrong on this particular point.

-Yad

he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Ever-Living:
"roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter. If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play. . .as explained in Reanimation Protocols."

Reanimation Protocols:
"Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit is destroyed, once the last model has been removed, remove all your counters from the unit."
It does not say remove all your Reanimation Protocols counters.
And SA immediately destroys the unit.

You're leaving out some important points there. I hope you're not doing it on purpose.

Which ones are relevant? Because otherwise it is silly this went to page 2.

Or are you also assuming that having something be "just as" does not mean what we think it means in other applications of 40k?
Or perhaps you are thinking "moves as", "counts as", "done as", et al are each 100% unrelated in effect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Read IC rules. He is again part of the unit during resolution.

Icemyn wrote:Actually it wasn't an insult, quite the opposite, its a quote by Dane Cook that I made in jest. Apologize if you feel that I was actually insulting you.
And again no it speaks of this point in time it does not speak to the future. Any inferences that you draw about the future are your own.
All it says it right at this moment I cannot stop the overdraft charges. Not that they cannot be stopped going forward or that further overdraft charges will be added.

Ah. I don't listen to Dane Cook, so that's why I misunderstood. It's all good.
So the ball isn't rolling? Or are you saying there's no guarantee that it is rolling - only that it was at that point.
Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

Intervention is required to stop the ball/knock down the shuttle/stop the overdrafts/rescue the unit. SA requires a specific override to rescue the unit. Similar to if my bank required a deposit in person to stop the overdrafts - I can deposit at ATMs all I want, but that will not stop the overdrafts.
You can do whatever you want, but without a specific allowance to come back from SA, the unit is destroyed.

rigeld2 wrote:Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

If I was ever going to create a signature this would be it.

-Yad

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Does it say "his old unit"? Does it say "the unit he used to be a part of"? No, it says "his unit" which is a present tense.

If an IC with an orb leaves his unit in the movement phase, and his unit goes on to take some dangerous terrain tests, your interpretation would mean that any RP rolls that happen because of the DT would be at 4+ - because the orb was a member of the unit, but isn't at the point the orb was rolled.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Actually it wasn't an insult, quite the opposite, its a quote by Dane Cook that I made in jest. Apologize if you feel that I was actually insulting you.
And again no it speaks of this point in time it does not speak to the future. Any inferences that you draw about the future are your own.
All it says it right at this moment I cannot stop the overdraft charges. Not that they cannot be stopped going forward or that further overdraft charges will be added.

Ah. I don't listen to Dane Cook, so that's why I misunderstood. It's all good.
So the ball isn't rolling? Or are you saying there's no guarantee that it is rolling - only that it was at that point.
Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

Intervention is required to stop the ball/knock down the shuttle/stop the overdrafts/rescue the unit. SA requires a specific override to rescue the unit. Similar to if my bank required a deposit in person to stop the overdrafts - I can deposit at ATMs all I want, but that will not stop the overdrafts.
You can do whatever you want, but without a specific allowance to come back from SA, the unit is destroyed.

Again it is in that instant it cannot be stopped. Nothing in the rule or your example precludes the effect being acted upon in the future.
Your example: I am taking overdraft charges at this moment nothing I can do to stop it. I can stop it later by adding money to my account.
SA: I am being destroyed at this moment nothing I can do about it, I cannot stop it right now. I can come back later by making an EL roll.

I am not arguing interference can stop it. That is infact my entire point. But I am interfering with the result of the SA not SA itself.
IE I am putting the flames out not stopping the fire from starting.

SA is fully and completely resolved well prior to the roll for EL. EL does not stop SA and SA does not stop EL.
Though I do love the Schrödinger reference.

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Does it say "his old unit"? Does it say "the unit he used to be a part of"? No, it says "his unit" which is a present tense.

If an IC with an orb leaves his unit in the movement phase, and his unit goes on to take some dangerous terrain tests, your interpretation would mean that any RP rolls that happen because of the DT would be at 4+ - because the orb was a member of the unit, but isn't at the point the orb was rolled.

Trolololol lol

so this
Q: If a model carrying a resurrection orb is removed as
a casualty, can you still benefit from it when rolling for
his, and his unit’s, Reanimation Protocol rolls that
phase? (p82)
A: Yes."

means that if he was part of the unit during the movement phase and kicked over a bomb (dangerous terrain test) and died, then yes the rest of the unit would still benefit till

A)he gets back up so they still benefit
B)does not get back up and the benefit ends

this is because this is at the end of the phase and all.

but if he leaves his unit by walking away and then they take DT tests then no they do not benefit.

Now lets say the cron lord dies and is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase. That model now has no effect on the game. But wait theres more due to the fact he had a res orb and there is a faq about it. now he does effect his "parent unit" even though he at this point in the game is no longer on the table.

and a due to RP/el rules he comes back from off the table back on to the table back with his parent unit, if applicable if not see

Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character
from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make
any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (p29)
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.

Icemyn wrote:Again it is in that instant it cannot be stopped. Nothing in the rule or your example precludes the effect being acted upon in the future.
Your example: I am taking overdraft charges at this moment nothing I can do to stop it. I can stop it later by adding money to my account.

You're forgetting the qualifier - intervening requires an in person deposit. Depositing at an ATM or transferring money online will not suffice.

SA: I am being destroyed at this moment nothing I can do about it, I cannot stop it right now. I can come back later by making an EL roll.

You're forgetting the qualifier - unless otherwise specified you cannot come back later.

I am not arguing interference can stop it. That is infact my entire point. But I am interfering with the result of the SA not SA itself.
IE I am putting the flames out not stopping the fire from starting.

You're changing the state from destroyed to undestroyed (or, rescued). Unless otherwise specified you cannot.

SA is fully and completely resolved well prior to the roll for EL. EL does not stop SA and SA does not stop EL.

SA is an ongoing effect, just like an overdraft in my bank account, the space shuttle being in space, and a rolling ball. To intervene in any of those, or to change the state, each one has different qualifiers. SA requires a specific allowance.

Though I do love the Schrödinger reference.

Yay - my attempt to inject humor worked and didn't piss anyone off!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:he was part of the unit. WAS not is Was.

Does it say "his old unit"? Does it say "the unit he used to be a part of"? No, it says "his unit" which is a present tense.

If an IC with an orb leaves his unit in the movement phase, and his unit goes on to take some dangerous terrain tests, your interpretation would mean that any RP rolls that happen because of the DT would be at 4+ - because the orb was a member of the unit, but isn't at the point the orb was rolled.

Trolololol lol

Actually no - and I'm pretty insulted by that insinuation.

means that if he was part of the unit during the movement phase and kicked over a bomb (dangerous terrain test) and died, then yes the rest of the unit would still benefit till

A)he gets back up so they still benefit
B)does not get back up and the benefit ends

this is because this is at the end of the phase and all.

Right. Because they're still his unit. Because the orb only works on him and his unit (not his old unit, or the unit he used to be a member of).

but if he leaves his unit by walking away and then they take DT tests then no they do not benefit.

But he was a member of the unit - and by your interpretation, that's enough. Because he was a member of the unit, they get the 4+ roll.

Now lets say the cron lord dies and is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase. That model now has no effect on the game. But wait theres more due to the fact he had a res orb and there is a faq about it. now he does effect his "parent unit" even though he at this point in the game is no longer on the table.

Parent unit? Can you cite a rule referring to that?
Models off the board can absolutely have an effect on the game, both wargear and abilities.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Again it is in that instant it cannot be stopped. Nothing in the rule or your example precludes the effect being acted upon in the future.
Your example: I am taking overdraft charges at this moment nothing I can do to stop it. I can stop it later by adding money to my account.

You're forgetting the qualifier - intervening requires an in person deposit. Depositing at an ATM or transferring money online will not suffice.

SA: I am being destroyed at this moment nothing I can do about it, I cannot stop it right now. I can come back later by making an EL roll.

You're forgetting the qualifier - unless otherwise specified you cannot come back later.

I am not arguing interference can stop it. That is infact my entire point. But I am interfering with the result of the SA not SA itself.
IE I am putting the flames out not stopping the fire from starting.

You're changing the state from destroyed to undestroyed (or, rescued). Unless otherwise specified you cannot.

SA is fully and completely resolved well prior to the roll for EL. EL does not stop SA and SA does not stop EL.

SA is an ongoing effect, just like an overdraft in my bank account, the space shuttle being in space, and a rolling ball. To intervene in any of those, or to change the state, each one has different qualifiers. SA requires a specific allowance.

Though I do love the Schrödinger reference.

Yay - my attempt to inject humor worked and didn't piss anyone off!

A) I dont see how they wouldn't suffice, but I dont think its relelvant anyway. I can think of many ways off hand that would qualify.
B) EL allows me to come back later thus specified.
C) See B. EL allows me to become undestroyed, By rolling the die and putting the model on the table the unit is undestroyed.
D) SA is not an ongoing effect. None of this talk of qualifiers shows how it is in any way.

SA requires a specific allowance to stop it at the instant it resolves. At no other time is there such a requirement.

Though I get the feeling we can argue this forever without a consensus.
Still that is the Idiomatic reading. The literal meaning the RAW does not mean ongoing.
I see no reason to not read this literally.

Icemyn wrote:
A) I dont see how they wouldn't suffice, but I dont think its relelvant anyway. I can think of many ways off hand that would qualify.
B) EL allows me to come back later thus specified.
C) See B. EL allows me to become undestroyed, By rolling the die and putting the model on the table the unit is undestroyed.
D) SA is not an ongoing effect. None of this talk of qualifiers shows how it is in any way.

A, whatever.
B, is an assumption, at best and misleading at worst. SA is never specified.
C, See B.
D, Even if correct, it is an immediate effect, and EL cannot be applied after it is done, especially since it uses RP rules which state that counters are removed.

edits

Icemyn wrote:A) I dont see how they wouldn't suffice, but I dont think its relelvant anyway. I can think of many ways off hand that would qualify.
B) EL allows me to come back later thus specified.
C) See B. EL allows me to become undestroyed, By rolling the die and putting the model on the table the unit is undestroyed.
D) SA is not an ongoing effect. None of this talk of qualifiers shows how it is in any way.

A) Because the qualifier doesn't allow them to suffice.
B) EL allows you to come back later, but doesn't over-ride SA (that's the "unless otherwise specified" that was referenced).
C) And undestroying the unit means it was rescued, which SA explicitly forbids unless otherwise specified.
D) SA is an ongoing effect - you have no basis for saying it isn't.

The unit is destroyed at this stage and cannot be rescued using a save or special ability unless otherwise specified.
The ball is rolling at this stage and cannot be stopped using a wall or gun unless otherwise specified.

There's no difference in the phrasing of the two sentences, but I seriously doubt you'd argue that the "rolling" is not an ongoing effect. Yet you're arguing that the "destroyed" is not an ongoing effect.

Though I get the feeling we can argue this forever without a consensus.

And I'm willing to leave it there - again. I can absolutely see that there might be two conflicting interpretations. I have disagree with people who say that it can only be one way and I'll argue against that.

edit: ninjaed!

Still that is the Idiomatic reading. The literal meaning the RAW does not mean ongoing.
I see no reason to not read this literally.

No, that's the literal reading. stage == point. You're reading "at this stage" as "at this point in time" when it literally means "at this point".

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually no - and I'm pretty insulted by that insinuation.

means that if he was part of the unit during the movement phase and kicked over a bomb (dangerous terrain test) and died, then yes the rest of the unit would still benefit till

A)he gets back up so they still benefit
B)does not get back up and the benefit ends

this is because this is at the end of the phase and all.

Right. Because they're still his unit. Because the orb only works on him and his unit (not his old unit, or the unit he used to be a member of).

Now lets say the cron lord dies and is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase. That model now has no effect on the game. But wait theres more due to the fact he had a res orb and there is a faq about it. now he does effect his "parent unit" even though he at this point in the game is no longer on the table.

Parent unit? Can you cite a rule referring to that?
Models off the board can absolutely have an effect on the game, both wargear and abilities.

yet a res orb works right. huh.

but if he leaves his unit by walking away and then they take DT tests then no they do not benefit.

But he was a member of the unit - and by your interpretation, that's enough. Because he was a member of the unit, they get the 4+ roll.


yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

(concerning the res orb)

i used "parent unit" as unit he BELONGED to before his untimely demise. which now he is no longer part of yet the unit still benefits from him due to the faq.

if you can cite where it says token is part of the unit, please do

but until then they are not

Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

Kirsanth - D) No one agrees with you there and there is a whole other thread saying why. No need to drag that here.
B) Not an assumption, IMO, and possibly just my opionion nothing removes the EL token thus the rules allow for you to roll.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

Res Orb works for "his unit" while he's off the table.
When a model stands back up, he stands up in coherency of his unit.

The model must be part of the unit while off the table for those rules to work.
I am not asserting that the token is a member of the unit - if I've said it that way it's because it's far easier to type that.
Also, I'd like an apology for the troll comment. I think I've established I'm not trolling in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

So your assertion is that the qualifier/restriction/whathaveyou *only* works for the "moment in time" destruction, not the ongoing state of being destroyed.

Why do you assert that? Is it just based on how you defined "at this stage" to mean "at this point in time"? If so, can you show why you're defining it that way?

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:yet he is no longer part of the unit that is the point i am trying to get across where does it say he is ? he is no longer on the board. we both agree that wargear does not work off table but the faq EXPLICITLY says it does. specific>general

Res Orb works for "his unit" while he's off the table.
When a model stands back up, he stands up in coherency of his unit.

The model must be part of the unit while off the table for those rules to work.
I am not asserting that the token is a member of the unit - if I've said it that way it's because it's far easier to type that.
Also, I'd like an apology for the troll comment. I think I've established I'm not trolling in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:Rigeld - I am not arguing that destroyed is not ongoing at all. If that is what you think then that is the main disconnect. The rule destroys them at that point. The ball is rolling at that point. just speak of one moment not further moments. They do infer they will keep going unless acted upon. But nothing in the SA rule stops you from acting later it only references one moment in time.

So your assertion is that the qualifier/restriction/whathaveyou *only* works for the "moment in time" destruction, not the ongoing state of being destroyed.

Why do you assert that? Is it just based on how you defined "at this stage" to mean "at this point in time"? If so, can you show why you're defining it that way?

I think you have gotten away from the actual wording of SA.
SA says:" no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"
So again, I am using EL (A Special Rule) to Save the unit at a different stage.
I think at some point you got it in your head that destroyed has the "at this stage" attached to it.
If that's not what happened I apologize it just seems that way.

As I have said before the reason I define it that way is because that is what it means, literally.

Icemyn wrote:As I have said before the reason I define it that way is because that is what it means, literally.

But it doesn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stage

A stage is not a specific point in time. It encompasses a period of time. There is nothing limiting the time SA prevents the rescuing of the unit.

That's the oxford definition, literally.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:As I have said before the reason I define it that way is because that is what it means, literally.

But it doesn't.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stage

A stage is not a specific point in time. It encompasses a period of time. There is nothing limiting the time SA prevents the rescuing of the unit.

That's the oxford definition, literally.

Your linked definition actually has a first definition of "point" and "step" I don't know if you noticed that, or chose to willfully ignore it.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/point?q=point
a particular spot, place, or position - Note that it is singular.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/step?q=step
an act or movement - Note that that is singular.

Your oxford dictionary definition is 2/3's Singular. Literally. (Thats being Generous as a period has a start and an end and EL can happen outside of SA's period)
Did that go the way you wanted? No I don't think so. - Will Farrell "The other guys"

Icemyn wrote:Kirsanth - D) No one agrees with you there

I rarely post because I think people agree with me.

"No one" is going a bit far, like if I said no one agrees with you about this so stop bringing it up.

stage

Pronunciation: /steɪdʒ/
noun
1a point, period, or step in a process or development:
there is no need at this stage to give explicit details
I was in the early stages of pregnancy

use the entire definition - Its a part of a whole, not a specific point in time. Look at the example given - an undefined period of time.

So while the individual words that are part of the definition are singular, the entire definition isn't.

Did that go the way you wanted? No I don't think so. - Will Farrell "The other guys"
(typing one handed because my son fell asleep on my other hand - sorry for speed/typos)

So, we're now back to "EL rescues the unit later, so its ok!!!"?

Really?

Think that this was covered back on page 5....

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, we're now back to "EL rescues the unit later, so its ok!!!"?

Really?

Think that this was covered back on page 5....

Page 1, actually.

Round and round the thread goes, where it stops we all know - with someone repeating the same tired, debunked argument from 20 pages ago, in the blind hope we'll stop refuting it?

Argument by attrition?

Or victory through repetition?

At least it didn't make it all the way to 22 pages.

kirsanth wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Kirsanth - D) No one agrees with you there

I rarely post because I think people agree with me.

"No one" is going a bit far, like if I said no one agrees with you about this so stop bringing it up.

I happen to agree with Kirsanth...

rigeld2 wrote:Schrödinger's sweeping advance!

I'm stealing this from you rigeld.

wow 21 pages and no actual answer