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.

There is an actual answer, however, some people disagree with what the answer is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ha. ha. First post on page 22.

Happyjew wrote:There is an actual answer, however, some people disagree with what the answer is.

My thoughts exactly.

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.

This is distinctly wrong and shows you do not understand RP or EL.

When a RP counter is placed and you roll successfully to bring the model back you place the model - not on the counter, but in coherency anywhere with the unit. The counter represents the ability to roll and bring a model back, not the model itself. You do not just replace the counter with the model so it does not represent the model.

Likewise with EL, the counter represents a roll and the ability to bring the model back - not on the counter, but anywhere within 3" of the counter. The counter only represents the ability to roll and the area where the model may return.

Therefore:

SA destroys the unit and all models but does not effect the EL tokens, its effect is done. Just like a destroyed gun on a tank.

Later EL allows a roll to bring a model back. It never violates SA just like a tech priest repairing a gun on a tank does not "save" the gun. It brings it back.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Later EL allows a roll to bring a model back. It never violates SA just like a tech priest repairing a gun on a tank does not "save" the gun. It brings it back.

What? No. Lets say there is a unit with the following special rule that activates when it destroys a weapon:

"We assume that the already destroyed weapon is completely shattered, ripped apart or exploded, its ammunition left either spent, ignited and eliminated, or at best looted and
missing. The destroyed weapon is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the weapon at this stage; for its service is over."

Would you say that a Techmarine can then repair the weapon?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

What? No. Lets say there is a unit with the following special rule that activates when it destroys a weapon:

"We assume that the already destroyed weapon is completely shattered, ripped apart or exploded, its ammunition left either spent, ignited and eliminated, or at best looted and
missing. The destroyed weapon is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the weapon at this stage; for its service is over."

Would you say that a Techmarine can then repair the weapon?

Yes. Because p73 of the SM codex specifically says it can. "If the result is 5 or more, then either a Weapon Destroyed
result or Immobilised result (owning player's choice) will be repaired"

I brought this up 20ish pages ago. That was when I said I don't need to see a rule that allows EL to overcome SA, rather I would be satisfied by seeing a rule that says EL is able to overcome destruction.

Edit : btw, I just finished reading pages 16 -22. You haven't made much progress without me.

So what the the phrase "no special rule can rescue the weapon" mean then? It is useless under your understanding.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:So what the the phrase "no special rule can rescue the weapon" mean then? It is useless under your understanding.

I apologize. I answered too quickly. As I said, I had just worked my way through 8 pages of ....hmm .... perfectly phrased debate.

I see your point, one minute while I reconsider


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, I figured out where the disconnect was. I answered the way I did because your hypothetical rule was not phrased how I thought SA was phrased.

page 1, this thread

krisanth wrote: Sweeping advance states that it is only capable of being ignored by rules that specifically mention Sweeping Advance being overruled/ignored

and I took it at face value and believed it.

I know I read the SA rules many times during this discussion, but only now did it occur to me that the above is an assumption. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying the proof I thought I had was not as good as I had thought.

So now I have to ask the question, where did the "Sweeping advance states that it is only capable of being ignored by rules that specifically mention Sweeping Advance being overruled/ignored" ruling come from? A faq? context? anyone remember?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Later EL allows a roll to bring a model back. It never violates SA just like a tech priest repairing a gun on a tank does not "save" the gun. It brings it back.

What? No. Lets say there is a unit with the following special rule that activates when it destroys a weapon:

"We assume that the already destroyed weapon is completely shattered, ripped apart or exploded, its ammunition left either spent, ignited and eliminated, or at best looted and
missing. The destroyed weapon is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the weapon at this stage; for its service is over."

Would you say that a Techmarine can then repair the weapon?

Yes because this occurs "..at this stage". The techmarine can repair the weapon later. Just like EL makes the model come back at another stage. Not at the end of this combat resolution. The next stage would be consolidation moves. The stage after that is complete the rest of the combats for the turn. Then after all of these stages roll for EL for the model to come back.

In fact, EL is not done as part of any particular combat. It occurs at the end of the phase.

So your tack, now its been proven that destroyed is not the same as wiped out (and you mysteriously stopped talking about it...), is to go back to page 1 and claim that SA is limited to a single instance?

When its been proven it isnt?

Really?

So by your reasoning WBB worked against sweeping advance? Simple yes or no here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and for giggles i did a search for WBB and SA, just to show how poor an argument "but RP happens after SA!!!" is.

For a refresher: WBB worked in an entirely different TURN to the sweeping advance, so much much much later!

thread here and here and here

OK, so back on p16 I summed things up and was met with a generally positive response. Let's see where we are.

an even more foolishmortal wrote:The NO position says that the model with EL may not come back as it was part of a unit that was swept and EL makes no specific provision to counter SA.

The PRO position says that the model with EL may come back since the instructions for SA have been completed, but no provision is made in SA to remove an EL counter and the effects of SA are finished resolving before the rules attached to the EL counter.

There are possible EXCEPTIONS to the above general cases, but they accurately describe the current [major] difference of opinion.

I believe we are still at the same basic point. Happily, it is far from a pointless deadlock. We have seen several different pertinent questions and thoughts.

After some extensive searching using the advanced search options, I have learned 2 things.
1) there are about 264,000 posts in the YMDC section of dakka.
2) I did not find a clear answer with supporting argument for either sweeping advance's duration or the distinction between 'destroyed' and 'wiped out'

I have started 2 new threads to try to amass data on the subject. Data is my dakka, MORE dakka!

Some other thoughts I had while reading p16-22

p48 BRB (5th) stats two cases where an IC may not join a unit (in assualt phase and if unit is locked in combat)
p29 necron codex (5th) Ever-living rule, 2nd paragraph explicitly states that a dead IC with EL may under some circumstances join a unit in the assualt phase and/or join a unit in CC

Icemyn wrote:Not to be rude but showing up saying something has merit and then dismissing it out of hand is really a waste of a post.

I disagree sir. It shows that you have read, understand, and appreciate what others have written, but that you are willing to respectfully disagree. This is assuming they disagree in a polite manner. If they are rude, then I agree with Icemyn.

If there are any Terry Pratchett fans out there and you have read Feet of Clay, this thread is starting to feel a great deal like a golem debate. That makes me very happy.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:both rules do not interact with each other.

Only if you think it is not rescuing, to bring a unit back from certain destruction. And that "this stage" is not Sweeping Advance [occurring] and is an indeterminate instant. And that a model in a unit that was wiped out is no longer part of that unit DURING ASSAULT - and thus not an IC.

I may be thinking too far outside the box here, but I had an odd thought. I just re-read several of the new faqs. One entry just popped up in my brain when I read this.

p5 Update 1.5 WH40k (FAQ)
"Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule."

What if when the warrior unit is swept, the dead IC with EL ceases to be joined to it in a similar manner? It's along the same line as what happens to a Character that lost its retinue (p48 BRB)

too crazy?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your tack, now its been proven that destroyed is not the same as wiped out (and you mysteriously stopped talking about it...), is to go back to page 1 and claim that SA is limited to a single instance?

When its been proven it isnt?

No, quite the opposite has been proven, though perhaps my sarcasm escaped you in my final post on the matter. Let me reiterate:

In British English some alternative meanings for "wiped out" are to be really really tired, and lose control of a vehicle. You used these alternate definitions to try to say my definition was wrong, but they actually have nothing to do with this discussion and mean nothing. Nobody has given an alternate meaning for the phrase "wiped out" in British English that makes any sense at in the context of this discussion. Therefore it stands that "wiped out" means exactly the same thing as "destroyed".

The whole nonsense about a "wiped out" unit not being destroyed is false.
The whole nonsense about a "destroyed unit" has not been wiped out is also clearly false.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So by your reasoning WBB worked against sweeping advance? Simple yes or no here.

WBB worked completely differently than EL and has no bearing on this discussion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your tack, now its been proven that destroyed is not the same as wiped out (and you mysteriously stopped talking about it...), is to go back to page 1 and claim that SA is limited to a single instance?

When its been proven it isnt?

Really?

I'm going to preface this by saying I am not trying to pick a fight. There are users in this thread with thousands of posts on dakka. Presumably, they have extensive play experience as well. I have been playing 40k for less than 2 years and by no means has it been 2 years of solid play. I definately have a lot to learn, and I will try to approach my time on dakka with that in mind.

Respectfully, I just went through 22 pages of text with the find function, looking at each instance of the text-string "wipe"

I found several strong arguments for wipe out not equaling destroyed. I made some of them.

I looked quickly and may very well have missed something. If so, I apologize and will print a huge retraction.

Please tell me the page # of this thread to look more carefully.

Meanwhile, is it possible that when you say it was "proved", what you mean is that it was argued successfully and most people (including me) agreed at a point earlier in this discussion?

foolishmortal wrote:

I found several strong arguments for wipe out not equaling destroyed. I made some of them.

I looked quickly and may very well have missed something. If so, I apologize and will print a huge retraction.

Please tell me the page # of this thread to look more carefully.

Meanwhile, is it possible that when you say it was "proved", what you mean is that it was argued successfully and most people (including me) agreed at a point earlier in this discussion?

I saw many posts where people have explained their idea that "wiped out" can mean something different from "destroyed" in game terms, but nobody has given a bit of evidence or proof other than a single entry in the entire rulebook that uses the phrase. That makes their argument weak at best.

By definition "wiped out" means "destroyed" and my British friends have not had any problem with this or even suggested it means anything else.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I saw many posts where people have explained their idea that "wiped out" can mean something different from "destroyed" in game terms, but nobody has given a bit of evidence or proof other than a single entry in the entire rulebook that uses the phrase. That makes their argument weak at best.

Most of the arguments are contextual in nature. I disagree about them being weak. I think they make a good case that GW has different things in mind with 'wiped out' and 'destroyed'. But there are exceptions, as I am fining in my research thread. If I find enough exceptions, then strong becomes less strong, possibly even weak.

Nemesor Dave wrote:By definition "wiped out" means "destroyed" and my British friends have not had any problem with this or even suggested it means anything else.

Here it is quite similar. "Wiped out" and "destroyed" are used synonymously. "Wiped out" is also used in the US as a reference to feeling tired or a vehicle crash (not just cars but bikes, skateboards, water skis, snow skis, surf boards, etc also) "Destroyed" is used informally to mean "I had such a good time I now feel wiped out" I read an article on BBC news about the guy from England that got sent back because he tweeted "destroyed" in this context. Airport security has NOOOOOOOO sense of humor. While I agree that such a comment would be in poor taste in person, in an airport, I fail to see why the TSA is reading the whole world's tweets.

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I saw many posts where people have explained their idea that "wiped out" can mean something different from "destroyed" in game terms, but nobody has given a bit of evidence or proof other than a single entry in the entire rulebook that uses the phrase. That makes their argument weak at best.

Most of the arguments are contextual in nature. I disagree about them being weak. I think they make a good case that GW has different things in mind with 'wiped out' and 'destroyed'. But there are exceptions, as I am fining in my research thread. If I find enough exceptions, then strong becomes less strong, possibly even weak.

For arguments sake lets say you're right and there are two conditions a unit can be in. 1. Destroyed and 2. Wiped out. And these are two separate states a unit can be in. Don't you think they would mention the "wiped out" in more than one sentence in a way that is not even emphasized?

What if you didn't notice that single time "wiped out" is used. Would you think there are two DISTINCT conditions a unit might be in when its removed - "wiped out" or "destroyed" from any other context? Not a chance.

This is why it's a weak argument.

It is entirely possible that I am defending it as a NOT weak argument, due to the fact that I agreed with it strongly at one point and still do to some extent. If it is was a weak argument and I failed to demand better proof, that might imply that I am weak minded. We are all human. Some of us more than others.

foolishmortal wrote:It is entirely possible that I am defending it as a NOT weak argument, due to the fact that I agreed with it strongly at one point and still do to some extent. If it is was a weak argument and I failed to demand better proof, that might imply that I am weak minded. We are all human. Some of us more than others.

Nothing personal meant at all by calling it a weak argument. I just mean that if there were multiple statements I could agree or disagree with it would be stronger. Or if it was implied in some other way by context. I don't have much to argue against other than to say you have almost no supporting evidence.

Even the British English vs American English argument could be useful if someone could offer an actual alternative meaning to "wiped out" that I could verify. "losing control of a vehicle" is clearly not applicable as neither is "tired" and so as of yet nobody has given a valid British English alternative meaning to "wiped out". Please don't expect me explain synonyms or how multiple entries under a single word in a dictionary work. Just give me a valid alternate British English meaning and I'll go verify it myself.

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?

If a dead model is part of a unit while dead then my 11+ ork boyz are always fearless. No matter if their they have less than 11. A dead model (boy) is still part of the unit therefore counts for mob rule.

Clearly that is what you're saying.

When the model comes back he is re-attached to his unit if applicable. But off table is not part of.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Even the British English vs American English argument could be useful if someone could offer an actual alternative meaning to "wiped out" that I could verify. "losing control of a vehicle" is clearly not applicable as neither is "tired" and so as of yet nobody has given a valid British English alternative meaning to "wiped out". Please don't expect me explain synonyms or how multiple entries under a single word in a dictionary work. Just give me a valid alternate British English meaning and I'll go verify it myself.

Contextually from GW's writings, I have found that wiped out usually means "completely removed from the board due to being removed as casualties." This is merely how I understand it. As I said, I have been looking hard for strong GW ruling proof and finding little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:If a dead model is part of a unit while dead then my 11+ ork boyz are always fearless. No matter if their they have less than 11. A dead model (boy) is still part of the unit therefore counts for mob rule.

Clearly that is what you're saying.

When the model comes back he is re-attached to his unit if applicable. But off table is not part of.

I respectfully disagree.

There are times when a unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant. The ork boyz is a good example.

There are other times when the unit is considered without casualties being relevant. The maximum number of warriors that can come back due to a the use of a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge ability for example.

I do agree that the two situations are not always clearly defined and that treating dead models as NOT part of the unit is a good default assumption.

foolishmortal wrote:

There are times when a unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant. The ork boyz is a good example.

There are other times when the unit is considered without casualties being relevant. The maximum number of warriors that can come back due to a the use of a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge ability for example.

Actually in the ghost ark case casualties are irrelevant to the rule also. The rule refers to "the units starting size". So the unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant.

Perhaps you have a better example?

Which means, if (for example) a unit got swept in Player 1 Turn 1 Assault (unlikely I know), and the Cryptek/Lord were to come back, within a few turns you could have your original warrior unit. Even though the unit was swept and destroyed.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Actually in the ghost ark case casualties are irrelevant to the rule also. The rule refers to "the units starting size". So the unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant.
Perhaps you have a better example?

The other commonly used example in this thread was

"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."

The dead model with the orb is still influences "his unit's" RP rolls. I will let others find other examples. I want to debunk right now, I've done enough bunking.

Necrons had an astounding, informative, and rapidly-released FAQ.

Why couldn't GW have just spelled this one out for all of us and put this baby to bed??!

As much as I want to believe that an EL character can return after a sweeping advance, provided he rolls that 5+(4+), it seems there are more detractors than proponents of this tactic. Either way will be fine, just give us a ruling GW!

That influence kicks in at the time of the RP roll. The model/orb's presence is not required until that time. You can't use that faq to create a link between the EL counter and the unit.

As I said before counters don't inherit the conditions of their units. If the overlord dies, and later the rest of the unit gets pinned and after that dies, a succesfull EL roll for the overlord won't bring him up as pinned. He will get up in a normal condition.

foolishmortal wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Actually in the ghost ark case casualties are irrelevant to the rule also. The rule refers to "the units starting size". So the unit is considered with only the models on the table being relevant.
Perhaps you have a better example?

The other commonly used example in this thread was

"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."

The dead model with the orb is still influences "his unit's" RP rolls. I will let others find other examples. I want to debunk right now, I've done enough bunking.

I don't think your viewpoint has been stated any better in this thread, however it is still flawed.

From your statements you cannot tell us any other guideline for when a dead model is considered to effect the living unit and when it doesn't. There is no precedent at all for anything in the game effecting dead models. You can't just pick and choose.

In this case the rule creates an exception that the unit that the dead model was part of benefits from the wargear the model had.

In every other case in the game it works the opposite way. Dead models are no longer part of their unit.

Do orc boys get mob rule when they have 8 living and 5 dead models?
Does a unit with a dead cryptek still benefit from its Seismic Crucible? (This may deserve it's own thread)

Simply put - a res orb is an exception to the rule.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Does a unit with a dead cryptek still benefit from its Seismic Crucible? (This may deserve it's own thread)

Couldn't happen. The roll for seismic srucible takes place at the start of the enemy Assault phase.

At this point the cryptek is either on the board because no cc attacks hae occurred, or it was removed after failing its EL roll (if it needed to take one) at the end of the shooting phase.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do orc boys get mob rule when they have 8 living and 5 dead models?

I don't have the orc codex - what's the rule say?
(I know what the effect is, I just want to know the exact wording)

time wizard wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Does a unit with a dead cryptek still benefit from its Seismic Crucible? (This may deserve it's own thread)

Couldn't happen. The roll for seismic srucible takes place at the start of the enemy Assault phase.

At this point the cryptek is either on the board because no cc attacks hae occurred, or it was removed after failing its EL roll (if it needed to take one) at the end of the shooting phase.

True. The argument for the dead modeling getting affected by SA relies on the assumption that a dead model (and/or its wargear) effects the unit they were in for the phase during which they died. Except for Res Orb there is no such rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Do orc boys get mob rule when they have 8 living and 5 dead models?

I don't have the orc codex - what's the rule say?
(I know what the effect is, I just want to know the exact wording)

"If an orc mob numbers 11 or more models it has the fearless special rule."

One of the interesting things that I've read here by the 'no' faction is that by rolling for EL at the end of the phase you are rescuing the Unit, thus running afoul of that particular restriction in the SA rules.

So my question then is, does SA retroactively prevent the EL model that was removed as a casualty from generating an EL counter/marker?

In the scenario we've been debating the EL model is removed as a casualty in close combat and an EL counter/marker is placed where it was removed. The Unit is subsequently Swept.

If you're saying that the EL roll at the end of the phase is not possible because it retroactively affects SA, then how can SA retroactively stop the EL model from generating a counter?

SA doesn't remove counters, right?

And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Simply put - a res orb is an exception to the rule.

It may be an exception, but it is an extremely relevant exception for the current discussion.
The fate of the dead IC with EL joined to the Swept unit, may well hinge on whether or not he is still part of that unit. This faq language suggests that he is. The KP discussion from earlier and the new faq language on Dark Eldar PfP and Nurgles is also interesting.

Just because the ghost arc repair barge ability intelligently refers to the unit's "starting size" does not invalidate the idea. [begin sarcasm] It's just an oddly coherent rule (now that it's faq'd) for the necron codex. I was caught off guard by all the sense that it made and the clearness of it. [/end sarcasm]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:
And keep in mind that Fall Back move only removes the RP counters not the EL counter(s)?

This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.


p29 says that all counters are removed from a unit of falling back Necrons. I would argue that the all probably refers to all RP counters. Still, this only clarifies that the RP counters are removed, not necessarily that the EL counter has blanket immunity.


edit:

For what it's worth
My e-mail to GW
The 40k rules, codexs, and FAQs often use the phrases "destroyed"
and/or "wiped out"

Are these two terms interchangeable? Is one a subset of the other?
What is the (if any) distinction?

GW's response
Hey there XXXXXXX,

Thanks for writing in to us! Both terms mean the same thing - the
complete destruction of a unit.

Thanks!

XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Customer Services Manager

also, props to GW for using one of the two phrases I wanted clarified in the combined definition. Not quite circular, but they're trying

OK, I need a nap