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.

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

@rigeld2
Battle is never defined, it is used just as like any other word, in fluff and in rules likewise. So the "for them the battle is over" is not any more valid than the "eternity" of Last Laugh just because it contains the word "battle". The actual rule is that the unit is removed as a casualty and can't be saved or rescued. Which rule is not contradicted by RP to need any special permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

copper.talos wrote:
@rigeld2
Battle is never defined, it is used just as like any other word, in fluff and in rules likewise. So the "for them the battle is over" is not any more valid than the "eternity" of Last Laugh just because it contains the word "battle". The actual rule is that the unit is removed as a casualty and can't be saved or rescued. Which rule is not contradicted by RP to need any special permission.

Battle isn't defined?
Could you tell me what the heading is on page 118? Is that a rules or a fluff section?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

Can't come back - BRB
Can too! - Codex. If it ended here, codex would win.
Need specific exemption. - BRB
<silence> - Codex.

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

It can in this instance, as the rule in the BRB states there needs to be something that is specifically specified otherwise.

EL/RP does not specifically state otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between ATSKNF and RP/EL where one specifies it works against SA and the other does not?
as Rig said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Can't come back - BRB
Can too! - Codex. If it ended here, codex would win.
Need specific exemption. - BRB
<silence> - Codex.

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Well you have a Codex Rule that start with "...if a model is removed as a casualty...." and you have BRB rule that says "The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties."
Then add to that a FAQ that says a unit that is "wiped out" can still make "Ever Living" rolls.

Seems pretty clear what should win out.

Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

Except that a BRB rule cannot win against a Codex rule. Page 7 of the BRB. This is a clear conflict.

It can in this instance, as the rule in the BRB states there needs to be something that is specifically specified otherwise.

EL/RP does not specifically state otherwise.

Do you understand the difference between ATSKNF and RP/EL where one specifies it works against SA and the other does not?
as Rig said:

rigeld2 wrote:

Can't come back - BRB
Can too! - Codex. If it ended here, codex would win.
Need specific exemption. - BRB
<silence> - Codex.

Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

If a the word "battle" is defined ruleswise then can you point me to what are the conditions for winning a "Battle". Because all I read is Eternal War missions.

True, the word battle is used in a heading, but also is "a" and "of". Are these words also defined ruleswise? For a word to be defined ruleswise it must have a specific meaning like "Leadership". Battle does not have such a specific meaning and can be used in fluff without a problem. On the other hand Eternal War is ruleswise well defined, and I am thinking you are confusing these two...

copper.talos wrote:
If a the word "battle" is defined ruleswise then can you point me to what are the conditions for winning a "Battle". Because all I read is Eternal War missions.

This section presents the Eternal War missions: scenarios where the armies are of roughly the same size and the situation gives neither side a particular advantage.

So we know that victory conditions are listed in the Eternal War scenarios.

Battle does not have such a specific meaning.

It absolutely does. A Battle is the entirety of the setup for a game, plus the game, and any mission special rules.

On the other hand Eternal War is ruleswise well defined, and I am thinking you are confusing these two...

Not at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
Hmm do you understand the difference between a Codex Rule and BRB rule?
Do you understand that the BRB states quite clearly that when a BRB rule conflicts with a Codex rule, the Codex rule wins?
Do you understand that it doesn't matter how the BRB rule is worded, "otherwise specified" or not, the codex rule wins because guess what the BRB rules say that the Codex rule wins?

No, your assertion is quite incorrect.
A codex rule can say that a psychic power causes a STR10 hit, but it still does nothing when it fails a to-hit roll.

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

hmm I dont recall chalk being that tasty, but then it has been many, many years since I late ate it.

40k-noob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

hmm I dont recall chalk being that tasty, but then it has been many, many years since I late ate it.

Normally I would agree, however, my girlfriend's surname is "Chalk"

copper.talos wrote:
Last laugh "... all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but lukas' last howls of laughter to keep them company for eternity".

So based on the above, if RP cannot be rolled because "for them the battle is over" then surely RP cannot be rolled after Last Laugh because the models are held in a temporal prison for eternity. Which of course is wrong...

Hint: Battle is defined in the BRB, Do you have a rules argument to make?

Kangodo - I must have missed where EL states "for them the battle is NOT over, despite what Sweeping Advance says" - can you pleae point out page and para? Or anything to back up your position that is based on actual rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:


Yes SA wins, as it states specifically that no rules can save a unit "Unless otherwise specified"

EL/RP does not specify that it works against SA.

ATSKNF Does specify that it works against SA.

Understand the difference?

With due respect, that sounds like the main argument against Tau Crisis Suits not being able to take 2 individual weapons of the same type because it was not specifically specified that they could - until GW specifically addressed that issue.

I grant that I don't have allot of 40K experience, but I have not seen anything in any rule book that says that exceptions have to be explicit ( even if it would be nice if they always were ) - such as ATSKNF vs. EL. ATSKNF gives a very explicit exception, while EL appeares to give a general exception ( I'm not saying at this point whether or not it does ).


Assume for the moment, that EL did give exception. How does it break the game ( if it does )? Given the EL FAQ just above, all it means is that the model with EL has a chance to come back at the end of the round ( not that it will ), is that in its self, a game breaker, or does it just mean that you have to work a little harder? Most models with EL, can not capture objectives by themselves, so if SA wipes out the rest of the squad, just how useful will that EL model be ( if it actually comes back )? IIRC, if it does come back, it normally comes back with a single wound, making them even easier to put down the next time - so again, just how useful would that model be? It can't normally capture points and usually comes back with a single wound - I grant that it might be annoying but doesn't sound like it would be a very effective unit. OTOH, it would conform to fluff, to have a couple of units returning just when you thought they were no longer a bother.

Now not to make things more complicated, but what about Trazyn the Infinite and his Surrogate Host ability? This also appears to give another possible general exception to SA, as on a role of 1 he is removed as normal, on a 2+ he randomly replaces another model ( specific types ), and awards kill points only when he does not return.

The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.

That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

Apples and Oranges.

or as they says in the UK

Cheese and Chalk.

And all 4 are equally delicious...

hmm I dont recall chalk being that tasty, but then it has been many, many years since I late ate it.

Normally I would agree, however, my girlfriend's surname is "Chalk"

Lucky man

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.
That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

No no no no =)
It specifically tells you that the rule must have specific wording before it can RESCUE the unit.
EL really shouldn't be seen as a rescue, because they all die.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.
That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

No no no no =)
It specifically tells you that the rule must have specific wording before it can RESCUE the unit.
EL really shouldn't be seen as a rescue, because they all die.

And for them the battle is over...?

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.
That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

No no no no =)
It specifically tells you that the rule must have specific wording before it can RESCUE the unit.
EL really shouldn't be seen as a rescue, because they all die.

No no no

SA tells you that for them, the battle [which is the whole game] is over.

Page and paragraph for your specific exception to this rule, as required both by SA and the tenets of this forum. Failure to provide said cite will mean you have effectively conceded that you have no rules based argument, and are strictly making a "HIWPI" argument without stating so clearly, again in violation of the forum tenets.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule for Sweeping Adcance SPECIFICALLY tells you the rule MUST have specific wording in order for it to work.

That is why it MUST have explicit wording. If it doesnt, then Sweeping Advance wins out.

All it says is " unless otherwise specified " - no where ( that I can find in the BRB ), does SA require explicit exception, while the Necron FAQ, does show that EL models have a general exception, to events, that would otherwise wipe out units that have even RP.

Now how about those questions I asked? If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

It wouldn't, but that's an irrelevant question really.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
SA tells you that for them, the battle [which is the whole game] is over.

Citation?

Page and paragraph for your specific exception to this rule, as required both by SA and the tenets of this forum. Failure to provide said cite will mean you have effectively conceded that you have no rules based argument, and are strictly making a "HIWPI" argument without stating so clearly, again in violation of the forum tenets.

It's cited in the SA-rulings.
Those rulings prevent a rescue.
EL is NOT a rescue. Allowing someone to die is NOT a rescue.

If a possessed robot dies and later repairs itself with magic it doesn't mean that he went back in time and stopped himself from dying.
He just died and came back alive.
SA-ruling 'demands' that the unit dies and EL allows them to die.

rigeld2 wrote:
Battle isn't defined?
Could you tell me what the heading is on page 118? Is that a rules or a fluff section?

It's both, fluff and rules. Just like the "for them the battle is over" is fluff.
Or do you throw down a gauntlet before 'Fighting A Battle'?

The entire section, which took way too long to read for this stupid discussion, does not define what a battle is in the 40k game.

Kangodo wrote:
EL is NOT a rescue. Allowing someone to die is NOT a rescue.

It really is - people are rescued from clinical death all the time.

rigeld2 wrote:
Battle isn't defined?
Could you tell me what the heading is on page 118? Is that a rules or a fluff section?

It's both, fluff and rules. Just like the "for them the battle is over" is fluff.
Or do you throw down a gauntlet before 'Fighting A Battle'?

The entire section, which took way too long to read for this stupid discussion, does not define what a battle is in the 40k game.

So the shooting phase isn't defined?
Nor the movement phase?
How about Special Rules - are those defined?

Citation for the part I clearly denoted was what "battle" means?

"Battle" as a definition has been given many, many times. This is a clear directive, which you are choosing to ignore.

Where in SA does it specify it works against Sweeping Advance. You are aware of what specify means, yes? Read ATSKNF, note how it specificaly states it operates against Sweeping Advance. Does EL? No? Then I gues you remain wrong on this.

SA demands that "for them, the battle is over"

So, I sak again: Page and Paragraph showing the precise, specific statement that allows them to be rescued.

I know you think that rescuing something is not possible if they are dead and are brought back to life, however actual real language disagrees with you in the strongest way.

To sumamrise: You have failed to provide any rules in violation of this forums rules. You have failed to provide a rebuttal of anyones arguments that isnt simply an assertion, based on hoping we wont notice your deliberate misrepresentation of what the text in the rulebook states, and finally you have insulted people by saying this is a "stupid" discussion.

Well, quite franklly it IS a stupid discussion: SA tells you the game is over, unless your rule states it works against SA. EL does not state it works against SA, so their game is over.

You have, through your failure to present an argument, effectively conceded that you have none.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

It wouldn't, but that's an irrelevant question really.

Not really.

If EL, is a general exception ( rather than a explicit exception ) to SA, and doesn't break the game, why not drop the arguing and just play it that way? If it's not breaking the game, and not giving any particular side any great advantage or great disadvantage, it becomes just something that should be expected and dealt with like ATSKNF ( and even units with ATSKNF can be forced off the board and destroyed ).

rigeld2 wrote:
It really is - people are rescued from clinical death all the time.

"Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism."
"Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain life."
Clinical death is not real death, those people never legally died.

And are you really using real-life medical terms to explain the necromancy of zombie-robots?

So the shooting phase isn't defined?
Nor the movement phase?
How about Special Rules - are those defined?

Those things actually ARE defined.
The BRB tells you exactly what the shooting phase is and how it works, unlike 'Fighting a Battle' which is nothing more than a title.

Except it cannot be a general exceptoin to SA, because no. such. thing. exists. The SA rules themselves state you must EXPLICITLY state you are an exception, otherwise the rules apply

 Chopper Greg wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Chopper Greg wrote:
If EL does grant a general exception to SA, how would it break the game?

It wouldn't, but that's an irrelevant question really.

Not really.

If EL, is a general exception ( rather than a explicit exception ) to SA, and doesn't break the game, why not drop the arguing and just play it that way? If it's not breaking the game, and not giving any particular side any great advantage or great disadvantage, it becomes just something that should be expected and dealt with like ATSKNF ( and even units with ATSKNF can be forced off the board and destroyed ).

Because I don't care how it's played at the table - aside from the fact that it neuters assault armies even more?
I just don't. I discuss rules on a forum. I play differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So the shooting phase isn't defined?
Nor the movement phase?
How about Special Rules - are those defined?

Those things actually ARE defined.
The BRB tells you exactly what the shooting phase is and how it works, unlike 'Fighting a Battle' which is nothing more than a title.

Citation required. The sections for those rules are listed out exactly as the Fighting a Battle section.

When a word is defined ruleswise is used as a reference. That is the point behind in defining words as such. So you have numerous references to "shooting phase", "morale test", Leadership etc for rule resolvement throughout the book and in codices. Are there any similar references for "battle"? None whatsoever.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except Yak IS right, here.

Unit A is destroyed
Unit A returns to play
EL saved the unit from remaining destroyed.

The unit was saved. Or are you arguing that a hospital, performing heart massage to save a person from clinical death, have NOT saved that person? As common language would disagree with you, rather heavily.

"Battle" is clearly NOT the close combat. To argue that is asinine,a s you must know that is not the meaning of "battle" in this context. Given they also use Battle to mean the whole game.

What about WBB, which operated the following TURN and was still considered a special rule that saves the unit? The rule for SA has not altered since 4th edition, apart from removing WBB as an EXAMPLE.

Desptie best efforts by some, this remains one of the clearest rules in 40k. Your rule doesnt mention SA? THen you are dead and gone, and cannot come back.

Except he,Yak, said that EL can save the unit if they fell in close combat but his unit was then Swept. While I started out in this vein I have since changed my outlook to say if that is true then they get EL even if they fall to Sweeping Advance. The reason being it would "save" the unit if that were the case. Since the unit is being removed as a casualty then their use of saved and rescued must reference "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost" as those are the options of being a casualty and also saved. As such I posted my beliefs as to why they would get EL as they were not prevented "from dying or being hurt, damaged, or lost " as they were removed as a casualty.

Your comparison above is also flawed. Now if the doctor called time of death and then managed to bring them back that would be a more accurate comparison. What you describe above is more akin to FNP given by a Dok to the ork units. As by the current definition if you are under his care you are not actually dead till he calls time of death, your heart simply stopped which is very common.