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.

Yad wrote:

This is why.

To quote, "If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the phase. Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters (NOTE: this does not say RP counters*) or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy."

In the Ever-living rules, "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter."

In my opinion it seems that, given the context under which the Reanimation Protocols are read, they are referring to RP counters, both in their placement and removal.

*added by me.

Ah, I see. You posted that a page back, and I don't believe I ever responded to it.

My answer to you is basically the same as my answer to ND, though a bit more detailed. 'All' or 'any' does not denote a closed set; it indicates a superset, which includes everything of a certain type. If more members or another subset are added at a later time, they will still fall under the superset. If you want to think of it this way, as soon as more members are added to a set, the list which contains every member of that set expands to include them. The word 'any' references that list.

The rules in a codex are not time-limited; that is, they don't necessarily occur in sequence, and certainly not in the sequence in which they appear in the book. Rather, they are all interacting more or less simultaneously on the tabletop, and they must all be considered together, without consideration for where in the book they are coming from.

The argument you and ND seem to be putting forward (please correct me if I have this wrong) is that when you read the Necron codex, you are introduced to the superset of 'any counters' at the same time as the subset 'Resurrection Protocols counters', and at a different time than the subset 'Ever-living counters'. You two then claim that this indicates that 'any counters' refers only to the subset of counters which are introduced concurrently. My point is that, logically, that's not accurate; 'any counters' MUST, necessarily, include everything which is a counter. Since we are told that the Ever-living rule places counters, we know that 'Ever-living counters' exist; since we know they're counters, they must be a subset of 'any counters'; and that means that the line 'remove any counters from it' must include Ever-living counters, simply because of what 'any' means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:

Just to clarify, in the RP rules it's actually 'any' not 'all'. And I would actually agree with what you just said here. But I don't think it applies to the RP rules for two reasons.

1.) The first paragraph in the RP rules concerning the placement and removal (from a fall back move) both use counters. Not RP counters.

2.) 3rd paragraph RP rules, "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This runs counter to the EL rules which allow the EL counter to remain. This may be a case of specific over general, but I don't think so. I think that given the context the reference to counters in the RP rules is always to RP counters.

-Yad

Yep, you're correct about any vs. all; I've been using 'all' just because it was the word being tossed around. It doesn't change the meaning any.

The Ever-living exception is indeed a case of specific vs. general. 'Ever-living counters' are more specific than 'any counters'.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I would agree.

It can be frustrating when people aren't seeing things your way, but if you find yourself actually getting angry about it maybe a break would be a good idea.

Ahh, no worries, I'm not mad just overly sarcastic with a bit too much emphasis. You can't get too bothered, at least they removed phase out.

love when GW make a FAQ that does not resolve gak

kirsanth wrote:I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!

Actually Crypteks, Lord, and such have both Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. However, the EL rules trump the RP ones. 1st line of the EL rules, "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play.

@BeRzErKeR: Yep, I do agree that counters are 'added to' a unit, but do not affect the properties of the unit (i.e., unit size, etc).

kirsanth wrote:IAutomatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:There is no 'allow' 'any:any' in the firewall rule-base.

Doesn't the lack of a rule allow that, or am I thinking backwards again?

Yeah, if I were to continue the firewall analogy then I would say that in a permissive ruleset there are your 'allows' which are then always followed by a 'deny all:all'.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!

Actually Crypteks, Lord, and such have both Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. However, the EL rules trump the RP ones. 1st line of the EL rules, "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play.

That only tells you which counter to use.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:

kirsanth wrote:I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!

Actually Crypteks, Lord, and such have both Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. However, the EL rules trump the RP ones. 1st line of the EL rules, "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play.

That only tells you which counter to use.

And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cripes, I think this thread might actually get me to 400 posts

-Yad

Yad wrote:And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

This is where I think you are missing it. They have both rules, they use them both, but one says to use a different counter.

Yad wrote:

And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

-Yad

The problem with this whole analogy, though, is that you don't have two independent rule-sets. You've got one ruleset, ie the rules of Warhammer 40k, and then a multi-tiered hierarchy leading down, eventually, to Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. I refer you back to the point I made a couple posts ago about sets and super-sets.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but I have to log out and close my browser if I'm ever going to get this homework done.

I expect a resolution when I return!

Monster Rain wrote:I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but I have to log out and close my browser if I'm ever going to get this homework done.

I expect a resolution when I return!

No pressure, or anything. . . .

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

-Yad

The problem with this whole analogy, though, is that you don't have two independent rule-sets. You've got one ruleset, ie the rules of Warhammer 40k, and then a multi-tiered hierarchy leading down, eventually, to Ever-living and Reanimation Protocols. I refer you back to the point I made a couple posts ago about sets and super-sets.

I don't think that level of 'sophistication' for lack of a better term is required to follow the RP and EL rules though. It really does boil down to context for me. The Reanimation Protocols rules only care about Reanimation Protocol counters. I think at this point I would need a FAQ entry to state that, "when removing counters from a Necron unit that has completed a fall back move, remove both the RP counters as well as the EL counters."

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

This is where I think you are missing it. They have both rules, they use them both, but one says to use a different counter.

Yes, an Overlord has both RP and EL. The Overlord will follow the EL rules and only use the RP rules to determine what dice to roll and how to interpret the result. The Overlord will also use the RP rules to determine how return to play if, and only if, he was attached to a unit at the time he was removed as a casualty.

Other differences between EL and RP:

1.) Placement of counter
2.) Returning the model to play if the model was not a member of a unit when it was removed as a casualty


-Yad

Yad wrote:

I don't think that level of 'sophistication' for lack of a better term is required to follow the RP and EL rules though. It really does boil down to context for me. I think at this point I would need a FAQ entry to state that, "when removing counters from a Necron unit that has completed a fall back move, remove both the RP counters as well as the EL counters."

-Yad

Fair enough. I would like to point something out, though; try going through the BRB and writing out a summary of the rules. I'm willing to wager anything you like that you can't make the rules in a single section function without referencing rules in at least one other section; and those rules that you referenced ALSO can't function without referencing something else, until eventually you wind your way all the back to the very basics; the Characteristic rules, and the rules governing the different phases of the game.

My point here is that 40k are never, and cannot be, hermetically sealed. They are written in exactly the style I'm describing; general rules which cover basics, followed by progressively more and more specific rules which tell you what exactly to do in different situations, and carve out exceptions from the general rules. This is why the interaction of specific vs. general rules works the way it does; without this organization,you cannot determine which rule takes precedence. The rules of a game must necessarily be arranged hierarchically, because you have to be able to look 'up the tree' to find the general rules and then trace a path down to whatever rules apply to a given situation, or the game doesn't function.

Unless I portrayed your argument inaccurately in that big post about sets, you do still have to deal with the issue. Saying that 'context' gets you out of following what the rule says is, well. . . it seems like handwaving to me. You still haven't explained how exactly it is that the context makes 'any' mean 'Resurrection Protocols', and that's what the argument you seem to be making would require.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

I don't think that level of 'sophistication' for lack of a better term is required to follow the RP and EL rules though. It really does boil down to context for me. I think at this point I would need a FAQ entry to state that, "when removing counters from a Necron unit that has completed a fall back move, remove both the RP counters as well as the EL counters."

-Yad

Fair enough. I would like to point something out, though; try going through the BRB and writing out a summary of the rules. I'm willing to wager anything you like that you can't make the rules in a single section function without referencing rules in at least one other section; and those rules that you referenced ALSO can't function without referencing something else, until eventually you wind your way all the back to the very basics; the Characteristic rules, and the rules governing the different phases of the game.

My point here is that 40k are never, and cannot be, hermetically sealed. They are written in exactly the style I'm describing; general rules which cover basics, followed by progressively more and more specific rules which tell you what exactly to do in different situations, and carve out exceptions from the general rules. This is why the interaction of specific vs. general rules works the way it does; without this organization,you cannot determine which rule takes precedence. The rules of a game must necessarily be arranged hierarchically, because you have to be able to look 'up the tree' to find the general rules and then trace a path down to whatever rules apply to a given situation, or the game doesn't function.

I absolutely agree with you here. I didn't mean imply that I think each rule mechanic in the game is completely independent from the other. For example, in RP we need to understand what a 'phase' is, what a Moral Check is, what is meant by engaged, etc. You absolutely need to reference those other parts of the rulebook to make RP work. that doesn't mean though that you can ignore the context under which the current rule mechanic you're reading is working under. For me, when I read the RP section and it immediately begins to talk about 'placing counters' and 'removing counters' I take this to mean placing [RP] counters and removing [RP] counters. This inference is further reinforced when I read the EL rules and find that they only touch the RP rules to determine how to handle rolling and returning the model.

-Yad




Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's all for me folks, gotta bail.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

I absolutely agree with you here. I didn't mean imply that I think each rule mechanic in the game is completely independent from the other. For example, in RP we need to understand what a 'phase' is, what a Moral Check is, what is meant by engaged, etc. You absolutely need to reference those other parts of the rulebook to make RP work. that doesn't mean though that you can ignore the context under which the current rule mechanic you're reading is working under. For me, when I read the RP section and it immediately begins to talk about 'placing counters' and 'removing counters' I take this to mean placing [RP] counters and removing [RP] counters. This inference is further reinforced when I read the EL rules and find that they only touch the RP rules to determine how to handle rolling and returning the model.

-Yad

But the EL rules specifically note that EL counters are excepted from the requirement in the RP rule to remove 'any counters' when every model in the unit is killed. If we're going to place greater weight on context than text, doesn't that indicate that EL counters are, in fact, included under 'any counters'? If they aren't, then there is no need for that specific exception to be made, because they're automatically excepted. That is certainly another place in which the EL rules and RP rules touch.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:And subsequently which rule-set to follow.

This is where I think you are missing it. They have both rules, they use them both, but one says to use a different counter.

Granting that the order of the sections doesn't matter. We can look individually at each part of the RP rule section and question whether it is meant to include information about handling EL counters.

In the RP section:
RP first paragraph -
1st sentence - RP gives a chance to return to play at the end of the current phase..
2nd sentence - when a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters to track casualties..

If we remove context and don't accept we are talking about RP counters only, couldn't this mean we place EL counters too? Why would you think an EL counter gets placed now? That doesn't make sense so we must only be talking about RP counters.

3rd sentence - "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy"

This doesn't say "all counters" but instead "any counters". Which counters would those be? So far we have only talked about placing RP counters. You could conclude they must mean "any RP counters". So fall back moves for EL is not specified in the rules.

2nd paragraph only specifically mentions rolling for RP counters.

3rd paragraph.
1st sentence - "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters. "

Do you make RP rolls for EL counters? No, so this must mean remove all RP counters.

2nd sentence - Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for purposes of Reanimation Protocols - if a character is the only surivor of a unit, his presence is not sufficient to allow a Reanimation Protocols roll, so remove any remaining counters."

This sentence is about "for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols". Pretty clear we're just talking about RP counters again with "any remaining counters."

3rd sentence - "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit(passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Would you remove EL counters when you pass or fail a RP roll? I don't believe so. This must be only talking about RP counters.

Taking it step by step it's clear to me that the entire section excludes any reference to EL counters.

RP rule " Reanimation protocols may not be be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. - once the last model has been removed as a casualty remove all your counters"

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.


The entire unit got wiped out. That means when the last model got removed as a casualty all the counters were removed. Try to deduce from the RP rule and the faq what counters are removed when "all counters" are mentioned.

copper.talos wrote:RP rule " Reanimation protocols may not be be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. - once the last model has been removed as a casualty remove all your counters"

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.


The entire unit got wiped out. That means when the last model got removed as a casualty all the counters were removed. Try to deduce from the RP rule and the faq what counters are removed when "all counters" are mentioned.

BeRzErKeR wrote:But the EL rules specifically note that EL counters are excepted from the requirement in the RP rule to remove 'any counters' when every model in the unit is killed. If we're going to place greater weight on context than text, doesn't that indicate that EL counters are, in fact, included under 'any counters'? If they aren't, then there is no need for that specific exception to be made, because they're automatically excepted. That is certainly another place in which the EL rules and RP rules touch.

'EL counters' are more specific than 'any counters'. Specific rules take precedence over general. This is evidence of nothing at all.

Nemesor Dave wrote:In the RP section:
RP first paragraph -
1st sentence - RP gives a chance to return to play at the end of the current phase..
2nd sentence - when a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters to track casualties..

If we remove context and don't accept we are talking about RP counters only, couldn't this mean we place EL counters too? Why would you think an EL counter gets placed now? That doesn't make sense so we must only be talking about RP counters.

The phrase 'RP counters' phrase is shorthand for 'the counters placed in accordance with the RP rule'. That being so, any counter you place because of the RP is, by definition, a RP counter and not an EL counter. This argument is invalid.

Nemesor Dave wrote: 3rd sentence - "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy"

This doesn't say "all counters" but instead "any counters". Which counters would those be? So far we have only talked about placing RP counters. You could conclude they must mean "any RP counters". So fall back moves for EL is not specified in the rules.

'Any' still refers to the super-set which includes everything called a counter. You are removing any counters that belong to the unit (paraphrasing here, slightly); that means that you do not have permission to leave any counters. You must remove them all, and since an EL counter is still a counter, that includes removing them, too.

Nemesor Dave wrote:3rd paragraph.
1st sentence - "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters. "

Do you make RP rolls for EL counters? No, so this must mean remove all RP counters.

2nd sentence - Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for purposes of Reanimation Protocols - if a character is the only surivor of a unit, his presence is not sufficient to allow a Reanimation Protocols roll, so remove any remaining counters."

This sentence is about "for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols". Pretty clear we're just talking about RP counters again with "any remaining counters."

3rd sentence - "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit(passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Would you remove EL counters when you pass or fail a RP roll? I don't believe so. This must be only talking about RP counters.

Taking it step by step it's clear to me that the entire section excludes any reference to EL counters.

First; Those two statements are separate. If the unit has been destroyed, you cannot make any Reanimation Protocols rolls - also, remove all your counters.

Second: Since this sentence refers to a situation in which only RP counters have been placed, I agree.

Third: Why not? Once again, you roll for EL exactly like you roll for RP; you make the rolls at the same time, and afterwards you remove any remaining counters, of any kind. There is no problem here.

Taking it step by step, it's quite clear that these rules do, in fact, refer to any counters, just like they say they do, not only RP counters.

copper.talos wrote:RP rule " Reanimation protocols may not be be attempted if the unit has been destroyed. - once the last model has been removed as a casualty remove all your counters"

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.


The entire unit got wiped out. That means when the last model got removed as a casualty all the counters were removed. Try to deduce from the RP rule and the faq what counters are removed when "all counters" are mentioned.

And this is the problem. Nowhere in the EL rules does it state that EL counters are not removed, in the above situation, and neither does the FAQ. The FAQ and the BR in the Necron WD certainly imply that the EL rules state this, and I'm sure that the Devs at GW certainly think it's plainly clear, but it's not explicitly stated anywhere that EL counters remain when RP counters are removed. I'm certainly happy to play it as if it were so, as I believe this was the intent of the rule.

Also, since the term "counter(s)" seems to have a specific in-game definition now, perhaps we should see just how many, and what kinds there are in the BGB and codexes, and what mechanics they have for placement and removal.

BGB Pg.26 "Multiple Wound Models", First column, Second Paragraph wrote: ......Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to them

Wounds are not represented by counters.

Tau Empire Pg 29, Inset "Markerlight wrote: Each time you hit a target unit with a marker light, put a counter by that unit. The counters remain until the end of the current Tau shooting phase or until they are used.

Tau Markerlights use counters, but these are irrelevant because they are removed at the end of any phase they are placed regardless of RP.

I can't think of anything else that has to use something to keep track of it's total in a similar fashion, if anybody else does, would you kindly post the exact rule so we can see precisely what 'counters' there actually are in the game?

Lordhat wrote:

by placing a dice or marker next to them

So a marker is not the same as a counter?

BeRzErKeR wrote:But the EL rules specifically note that EL counters are excepted from the requirement in the RP rule to remove 'any counters' when every model in the unit is killed.

Where does the EL rule mention such a thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since the above quote is false and there is no such exception, you can deduce from the RP rule segment I posted and the faq that when under the RP rule "all counters" are mentioned it means all the RP counters.

Happyjew wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

by placing a dice or marker next to them

So a marker is not the same as a counter?

Hell, we've already determined that a counter is not the same as a counter.....

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:In the RP section:
RP first paragraph -
1st sentence - RP gives a chance to return to play at the end of the current phase..
2nd sentence - when a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters to track casualties..

If we remove context and don't accept we are talking about RP counters only, couldn't this mean we place EL counters too? Why would you think an EL counter gets placed now? That doesn't make sense so we must only be talking about RP counters.

The phrase 'RP counters' phrase is shorthand for 'the counters placed in accordance with the RP rule'. That being so, any counter you place because of the RP is, by definition, a RP counter and not an EL counter. This argument is invalid.

As long as you understand that it is not specified as placing a RP counter, in any case we agree this sentence must be about only RP counters.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote: 3rd sentence - "If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy"

This doesn't say "all counters" but instead "any counters". Which counters would those be? So far we have only talked about placing RP counters. You could conclude they must mean "any RP counters". So fall back moves for EL is not specified in the rules.

'Any' still refers to the super-set which includes everything called a counter. You are removing any counters that belong to the unit (paraphrasing here, slightly); that means that you do not have permission to leave any counters. You must remove them all, and since an EL counter is still a counter, that includes removing them, too.

This argument is ignoring the structure and subject of the paragraph. The subject is all RP counters from casualties for this unit. An example would be the last sentence of Pile In is "While a unit is locked in combat it may only make pile-in moves and may not otherwise move or shoot." According to this reasoning a unit locked in combat can never move or shoot.

ND - nothing you posted proved that. See the other thread. You know what "equivalent" means dont you? Wiped out can mean destroyed, but destroyed doesnt mean wiped out. Destroyed is the parent, wiped out is the child. Does that help you in your understanding?

Oh, and email from GW? You could have easily fabricated it. Hence the tenet.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

I understand what you're saying, but since the EL roll can be made independently of the unit in which the character with the rule had joined I don't see it as being that clear cut.

So you're making Argument 2, then; you're claiming that the EL counter isn't associated with the unit. Right?

That then runs afoul of the Necron FAQ again; the wargear, at least, of a dead IC still affects his unit. That implies that the IC is still part of that unit, since of course the war gear can't affect a unit he isn't a part of. Is there a counter-example somewhere?

only because it places a status effect/buff/ongoing ability. the model itself is no longer in play, and has been removed from the table. and we know that models not on table and not in play don't effect the game.

after reaaading all the 27 pages:


Sweeping advance does NOT prevent Ever Living

Dont know why people mix rules , RP is one rule , EL other

RP states thats removes al counter OF RP......if the unit has a counter of other type ....it gets remove?? noooo!

again , Sweeping advance does NOT prevent Ever Living


my 2 cents xD

Ok, I caught up from p22-27. More to come shortly.

Seeing so many people's differing methods / attempts at communication has been very interesting. I can see the people that have played Magic competitively. I can see the IT professionals. I can see the parents and the children. Dakka is a very small slice of humanity as whole, but humanity is a very large pie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - nothing you posted proved that. See the other thread.

that and the other thread are so unspecific that I doubt he will be able to respond to you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You know what "equivalent" means dont you? Wiped out can mean destroyed, but destroyed doesnt mean wiped out. Destroyed is the parent, wiped out is the child. Does that help you in your understanding?

While I agree that this analogy/line-of-thinking might be useful in understanding this situation, GW language and context is probably more relevant and helpful. Nonetheless, if we are going to use group theory, I would say that is has been proven that there is some overlap between "wiped out" and "destroyed", but it has not been shown that one is a sub-set completely encapsulated by the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh, and email from GW? You could have easily fabricated it. Hence the tenet.

Nem Dave didn't post the e-mail. I did. If you wish to ignore it, fine. If you wish to PM me about it, fine.

wolftime wrote:after reaaading all the 27 pages:


Sweeping advance does NOT prevent Ever Living

Dont know why people mix rules , RP is one rule , EL other

RP states thats removes al counter OF RP......if the unit has a counter of other type ....it gets remove?? noooo!

again , Sweeping advance does NOT prevent Ever Living


my 2 cents xD

Do you have anything of value to add to the thread other than "No".?

BeRzErKeR wrote: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.

The evidence is con-textual. Very rarely does GW explicitly state every possible way a rule might be interpreted. That would make for boring rulebooks and no need for YMDC.
Contextual evidence - the best tool for interpreting the rules, is the rules themselves.
1) p29 Necron Codex, 4th paragraph - "once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters."
2) p1 Codex Necrons Official Update 2.0 -
"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."

Given 1 and 2, I say that EL counters are not removed in the event of the complete removal of the unit due to casualties. Limiting it to RP counters and all other non-EL counters seems out of the ordinary for GW. Hence, the most likely interpretation (IMO) is that all counters here means all RP counters. Given the context and sentence structure in the 2nd paragraph, I would draw the same conclusion.

"Silly" does not necessarily mean against the rules, but when given two choices of how to interprete a rule, I generally choose the one that causes the least new rules problems. This is often the less silly one.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:
my 2 cents xD

Do you have anything of value to add to the thread other than "No".?

nosferatu1001 wrote:ND - nothing you posted proved that. See the other thread. You know what "equivalent" means dont you? Wiped out can mean destroyed, but destroyed doesnt mean wiped out. Destroyed is the parent, wiped out is the child. Does that help you in your understanding?

Oh, and email from GW? You could have easily fabricated it. Hence the tenet.

My personal understanding is different than yours no matter how many ways you explain your understanding of the two phrases. I also have outside sources to back me up (whether you agree with them or not).

Often terms within a game have different meaning from their real world meaning so usually a dictionary is not useful in this type of discussion. For me, the dictionary reaffirms my understanding that I am correct in my personal use and understanding of "wiped out" and "destroyed". Again, you will never convince me to start using those two in every day speech any differently or interpret them differently when I read them unless the rulebook specifically redefines them which you have not shown.

They are synonymous and mean exactly the same thing.

Show me where the rulebook redefines these words and separates them from their every day use.

The single rulebook use of "wiped out" is not proof of your understanding. That is what we are interpreting and it's meaning changes depending on how you define the two phrases. Show us proof that your interpretation is correct either from other places in the rulebook, or an outside source.

The letter from GW - I did not post this, but I believe it because it does not contradict my personal understanding of the words, the dictionary definition, and these words are not redefined in the rulebook. It is a source of proof you can accept or not accept.

You have already explained many times your own understanding. We're not here just to take your word for it. Where do you get your personal definition from that is different from common English use? Where is reason behind your argument?

"They are synonymous and mean exactly the same thing."

Good job the dictionary disagrees with you. Or have you failed to read the posts which show the definition only works one way - destroy does not have the definition of wiped out?

You can disagree, but you are going against slightly more believable sources than your opinion.

Also - the letter from GW is not "proof" of anything other than someones ability to type letters into a forum post. It is why they are not allowed in YMDC, because they cannot be verified.

". We're not here just to take your word for it. Where do you get your personal definition from that is different from common English use? Where is reason behind your argument? "

Good job I posted dictionary definitions, form multiple sources, backed up by Copper (although he doesnt realise it) showing that it is one sided - and that is the reason behind THIS portion of the argument

The rest of peoples arguments now seems to boil down to timing - that SA "resolves" and then AFTER that EL is rollled, allowing you to rescue the unit

I pointed out that WBB, whcih resolved at an even LATER stage than EL, did not work against Sweeping Advance. Something about that should tell you the chances of EL doing something different...