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.

foolishmortal wrote:This has been stated before. I again ask for proof.

This being a permissive rules set and all, shouldn't you be showing where it says that you do remove them?

Monster Rain wrote:

foolishmortal 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.

This being a permissive rules set and all, shouldn't you be showing where it says that you do remove them?

The evidence is the wording of the RP rule, which says that if the unit is swept you remove ALL counters, not all RP counters. Read literally, that means that when a unit with RP is swept, every single counter associated with the unit is removed, regardless of what said counter is representing.

foolishmortal wrote:

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.

I've gone back and forth with Kirsanth on this one. When you look at p.29 of the Necron code you see the two separate entries we are concerned with, Reanimation Protocols and Ever-living. Each entry is a self contained rule (i.e., game mechanic). The EL entry only references/draws from the RP entry in two instances.

1.) What dice to roll and how to interpret them.
2.) How to return an EL model that was removed as a casualty and succeeded on the EL roll.

Aside from that there are no other interactions between RP and EL. There is no language in the EL entry that states that EL is handled exactly the same as RP (aside of course from what I just described). As I explained to Kirsanth, even the counters are named and placed differently.

Thus, when you read about the the counters being removed after a successful Fall Back move is completed, it is the RP counters, and only the RP counters, that are removed.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

foolishmortal 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.

This being a permissive rules set and all, shouldn't you be showing where it says that you do remove them?

The evidence is the wording of the RP rule, which says that if the unit is swept you remove ALL counters, not all RP counters. Read literally, that means that when a unit with RP is swept, every single counter associated with the unit is removed, regardless of what said counter is representing.

The context of the statement, contained inside of the RP section, suggests to me that it only cares about the RP counters.

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:

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

Ah, so when you couldnt find an actual definition saying what you want it to say, yiu just assumed theyre equivalent?

Interesting, in an entirely useless way.

Nemesor Dave wrote: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.

So clearly you dont need to find any evidence of it, and can ignore evidence to the contrary?

Interesting, again

Nemesor Dave wrote:

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.

Ah, yet again you are entirely wrong.

Wbb worked when you were removed as a casualty
It used a token to represent the fallen model
It was not a save
It operated after the usual to hit, wound, save sequence

So when you say entirely differently, youre wrong. And wbb, which worked at an even LATER point to EL didnt work

Your argument about destroyed / wiped out is debunked, and has been for many pages now
Your argument that it works becuase it occurs "after" sa is debunked, again, with an example to show that your argukent hasnt beed valid since 2004

Youre done

Which when you boil it all down is the crux of my argument. If the Fall Back move removes both types of counters, then my argument fails as there would be no counters to handle at the end of the phase. I don't think that's the case. I think that as soon as the model with EL is removed as a casualty, the counter is placed and nothing can remove it.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

The context of the statement, contained inside of the RP section, suggests to me that it only cares about the RP counters.

-Yad

But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

As it stands, and unless I have the wording wrong, the rule indicates that all counters associated with a unit with the RP rule are removed when that unit is subject to a Sweeping Advance. In order for any counter to NOT be removed, then, it either needs to not be associated with the unit, or have a specific exception.

Which brings us right back to 'Is a dead model with EL still part of the unit'.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

The context of the statement, contained inside of the RP section, suggests to me that it only cares about the RP counters.

-Yad

But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

As it stands, and unless I have the wording wrong, the rule indicates that all counters associated with a unit with the RP rule are removed when that unit is subject to a Sweeping Advance. In order for any counter to NOT be removed, then, it either needs to not be associated with the unit, or have a specific exception.

Which brings us right back to 'Is a dead model with EL still part of the unit'.

There has been many a thread where the context in which a rule, or set of rules, is read from is treated just as importantly as the rule itself. I hold both the RP rules and the EL rules to be in silos. Any reference to counters in the RP rules are always in reference to the RP counter.

Additionally, the counters (RP ) aren't removed when the Unit is subject to a Sweeping Advance, they are removed when the unit fails its Morale Check and completes a fall back move (Necron Codex p.29). SA never has anything to do with the counters. The part about the model still being counted as part of the unit strikes me as irrelevant.

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that are physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
5.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
6.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

I need to clarify point #4. That should really read, "Only those models/units that are 'in play' can be destroyed and removed from play.

Yad wrote:

There has been many a thread where the context in which a rule, or set of rules, a read from is just as important as the rule itself. I hold both the RP rules and the EL rules to be in silos. Any reference to counters in the RP rules are always in reference to the RP counter.

-Yad

Rules consist of many different pieces. Some of those pieces are internally separated from each other, but most are not; rules always have to be read together with other rules. The basic assumption, essentially, must be that whatever a rule says applies to the whole ruleset, otherwise things start to break.

For instance; the rules for Access Points are in the 'Fire Points' section of the Vehicle rules, but the rules for USING them (disembarking) are in a different section. If we're going to assume that rules are sealed off from each other like this, then I would argue it's not actually possible to embark or disembark from a vehicle. Why? Because you can't determine what access points are, or how to use them, without referencing a different and (on the face of it) totally unrelated section of the rules.

Arbitrarily limiting a rule that says "all counters" to only affect "all RP counters" is unjustified, and doing so requires textual evidence. What is that textual evidence? And no; merely being found in a section headed "Resurrection Protocols" does not count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
4.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
5.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

Sweeping Advance is resolved AFTER Fall Back moves, I believe. . . I'm on-campus and don't have my rulebook available, can someone confirm?

BeRzErKeR wrote:But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

So shouldn't you be the one showing where it says in the Rules that you do remove the EL counters?

Why is the burden of proof on the one with whom you disagree?

Man, I'm just glad that no one has tried to say that when the cryptek/lord go down they get both an EL counter and an RP counter. After all they have both rules.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
4.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
5.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

Sweeping Advance is resolved AFTER Fall Back moves, I believe. . . I'm on-campus and don't have my rulebook available, can someone confirm?

Agreed. I'm making that assumption between #1 & #2 that the unit has failed it's Morale Check.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Man, I'm just glad that no one has tried to say that when the cryptek/lord go down they get both an EL counter and an RP counter. After all they have both rules.

Sweeping Advance is after morale checks, and if unsuccessful, the fleeing unit makes a fall back move. Fluff-wise they happen simultaneously.

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:But it doesn't say that it cares only about RP counters. That's an assumption; and since this is YMDC, and we are dealing with the strict RAW (right down to dissecting grammar, in many cases) you need to provide a textual statement to that effect.

So shouldn't you be the one showing where it says in the Rules that you do remove the EL counters?

Why is the burden of proof on the one with whom you disagree?

He is. He's saying that the reference to 'any counters' in the Reanimation Protocols means both EL counters and RP counters. I think that given the context of the rules and how EL inter-operates with RP, the reference is for any RP counters.

-Yad

Yad wrote:He is. He's saying that the reference to 'any counters' in the Reanimation Protocols means both EL counters and RP counters. I think that given the context of the rules and how EL inter-operates with RP, the reference is for any RP counters.

-Yad

Missed that, then. My mistake.

I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

1.) Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2.) Unit is Swept and Destroyed.
3.) A destroyed unit is removed from play.
4.) Only those models from the unit that physically on board can be destroyed and removed from play.
4.) The EL model that was already removed from play as a casualty cannot again be removed from play by being Swept.
5.) EL counter remains on the board and must be resolved at the end of the Assault phase.

-Yad

Sweeping Advance is resolved AFTER Fall Back moves, I believe. . . I'm on-campus and don't have my rulebook available, can someone confirm?

Agreed. I'm making that assumption between #1 & #2 that the unit has failed it's Morale Check.

Right, but doesn't that mean that the unit both fell back AND suffered a Sweeping Advance? In which case, when the unit failed that Morale check, all the counters were removed, before the Sweeping Advance ever occurred.

You still haven't provided that textual evidence; as I said, based on precedent from the BRB, simply being found in a certain section is not a justification to limit the applicability of a rule to only what is found in that particular section. Or, in other words, headers are not rules, only rules text is.

BRB pg 40. When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance, attempting to cut down the retreating enemies.

So first a unit falls back and then they can be caught in a sweeping advance.


edit: I thought BeRzErKeR said the opposite and had that edited. Oh well

Monster Rain wrote:I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

EL states that it is done just as RP. So there is a specific reason (rule, even) NOT to say only RP counters. Which is what was done.

Show proof they did not mean to write what they wrote.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

EL states that it is done just as RP. So there is a specific reason (rule, even) NOT to say only RP counters. Which is what was done.

Show proof they did not mean to write what they wrote.

Come on, man.

Don't be fallacious like that.

It says the roll is made just like RP.

copper.talos wrote:BRB pg 40. When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a sweeping advance, attempting to cut down the retreating enemies.

So first a unit falls back and then they can be caught in a sweeping advance.

Thank you.

So, the actual series of events is this;

1. Model is removed from play as a casualty. EL counter placed where it was removed.
2. Unit loses combat, takes a Morale check, and fails. The unit Falls Back and all counters are removed.
3. An opposed Initiative test is taken; the unit loses, so it suffers a Sweeping Advance.
4. The whole unit is now destroyed, and cannot return (at least not via RP); in addition, there are none of the unit's counters on the board after the Sweeping Advance is concluded.

Now; it is still possible to argue that the EL counter remains. In order to do so, you have to do one of two things.

1) Provide textual evidence that "all counters" means "all RP counters" rather than "all counters of any type". This may well be possible, depending on the exact wording; I do not own the Newcron codex, so I've been working on the basis of what quotes I've seen in the various threads about them. If there's some wording that indicates that ONLY RP counters are removed, then the EL counter would remain.

Or,

2) Present evidence that the EL counter is not associated with the unit. I contend that it is; it is associated with the IC who was RFPaaC, and he is still part of the unit. That being so, the counter is necessarily associated with the unit. However, if any rules text can be found which tells us that models which are RFPaaC are no longer part of their previous unit, then the EL counter would remain, because the SA result would be irrelevant to it.

Successfully making Argument 1 wouldn't settle the overall issue of whether EL can bring an attached IC back from SA even if successful; it still leaves open the argument that an attached IC is part of the unit and thus cannot be rescued (as well as the argument that even if EL does an end-run around SA, the IC has been destroyed twice and only recovered once, and so is still dead).

Successfully making Argument 2, by contrast, would end the whole argument; if the attached IC ceases to be part of the unit as soon as it is RFPaaC, then it was never subject to the Sweeping Advance at all and so can recover perfectly well. Since I think we all agree that an IC which is actually destroyed BY a Sweeping Advance (as opposed to being killed earlier and then having its unit swept) cannot use EL to come back, that would settle the entire debate. However, given the precedent of the Necron FAQ, you'll have your work cut out for you here.

EDIT: This space intentionally left blank.

@kirsanth
The EL roll is done just like the RP roll. No mention that the RP counters are like the EL ones, The counters are fundamentally different.

BeRzErKeR wrote:EDIT: I notice copper.talos has edited his post. Did you misread the rule?

No, his rules quote is correct. I posted the same thing a few pages ago.

@BeRzErKeR
No I didn't read your earlier post correctly and thought you said the opposite.

Ah, good. I'm not crazy, then.

SO! It seems to me that the next thing to do is to see if there is evidence present for Argument 1 or Argument 2.

If Argument 1 is valid, then we can get back on the merry-go-round and have another nineteen or twenty pages of talking past each other.

If Argument 2 is valid, then the question of whether a previously-killed IC can use EL after his unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance is answered in the affirmative. I suppose we could still wrangle about ICs who are actually removed BY the Sweeping Advance, but I was under the impression that we had a consensus on that.

If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Does that sound accurate?

Sounds good to me.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Does that sound accurate?

Up until you make this leap, yes.

BeRzErKeR wrote:If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Argument 2 isnt needed as much - you need to prove you arent rescuing a member of the unit, while not being in possession of appropriate permission to do so.

I'm going to bow out of adding more to this discussion. In attempting to get evidence regarding the two posted arguments I caught myself injecting a bias into my interpretations. I'd rather not color the outcome by doing so.

I believe I have remained relatively unbiased until now.

I will be watching the thread with great interest.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ah, good. I'm not crazy, then.

If no evidence can be found to prove either argument valid, then the only conclusion that remains to be drawn is that a Sweeping Advance removes EL counters, and that therefore a model with EL may not return after its unit has suffered a Sweeping Advance, regardless of when in the Assault Phase it was removed.

Does that sound accurate?

I think this bit presents a false choice. The instructions on when and how you can remove [RP] counters are found only in the RP rule section. Meaning their removal is directed/controled by the RP rule-set. As that rule only mentions a completed fall back move as the only way you can remove the counters then a SA cannot do so.

-Yad

Aside from that, I think you've given a good summary.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I agree, though, that since the removal of the counters is outlined in the RP section and EL is a separate rule, that your contextual interpretation is the correct one.

EL states that it is done just as RP. So there is a specific reason (rule, even) NOT to say only RP counters. Which is what was done.

Show proof they did not mean to write what they wrote.

Come on, man.

Don't be fallacious like that.

It says the roll is made just like RP.

copper.talos wrote:@kirsanth
The EL roll is done just like the RP roll. No mention that the RP counters are like the EL ones, The counters are fundamentally different.

No.

1:It says "roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter".


Not done in similar manners.
2:Q: Is the roll for an Ever-living counter the same as a
Reanimation Protocol roll. . .? (p29)
A: Yes. . .

= 3: Roll for EL counters just as you would roll RP counters; since the rolls are the same, they have the same restrictions (except where specified otherwise, for the rules impaired).

Which is to say, if you cannot roll for the RP counter, you cannot roll for the EL counter.
Nothing in the rules says to separate the rolls, and there is a rule saying those rolls are the same.

kirsanth wrote:[Nothing in the rules says to separate the rolls, and there is a rule saying those rolls are the same.

Except, of course, the Ever Living rules description.