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.

Think its about time this thread gets locked, its been highly repetitive for a while now and nothing new can be added to change anyone's mind until GW FAQ it to make it abundantly clear whether EL can be used after SW takes place or not.

Personally i am in the camp that says they can't get back up, i have always played that way and will continue to play that way until they say otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:


Which of course does not matter if you are caught in a SA, as for that unit the battle is over.

If " You do die, and then you come back" is the battle over?

And since EL says they can come back there is a conflict between a rule in the BRB and a special rule in a codex and given that the last paragraph Pg 7 of the BRB explicitly states "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence".

So if you do not allow EL models to have their EL role, you will be in violation of the Codex rule for EL and the BRB rule that states advanced codex rules always override BRB rules.

Chopper Greg wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


Which of course does not matter if you are caught in a SA, as for that unit the battle is over.

If " You do die, and then you come back" is the battle over?

And since EL says they can come back there is a conflict between a rule in the BRB and a special rule in a codex and given that the last paragraph Pg 7 of the BRB explicitly states "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence".

So if you do not allow EL models to have their EL role, you will be in violation of the Codex rule for EL and the BRB rule that states advanced codex rules always override BRB rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

BLADERIKER wrote:
A lot of good (but irrelevant) research

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

Is EL a special rule?

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

False.
EL does not say no.
EL says: "Sure, they will die." and then sneakily brings them back to life after they died.

EL is a special rule and not allowed by the specificity of SA. To deny it is simply dishonest at this point.

Kangodo wrote:

I've explained why you're 100% incorrect at least once now.
SA says die.
EL says no - if it ended here the codex would win.
SA says die with no special rules.

False.
EL does not say no.
EL says: "Sure, they will die." and then sneakily brings them back to life after they died.

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? Yes.
Can EL (as a special rule) work in this case? No....

Beast wrote:
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? Yes.
Can EL (as a special rule) work in this case? No....

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

SA says the battle, for swept units, is over for them, and that no special rule will "rescue' them. Seems pretty obvious both in the literal wording and the context what that means... Specifically, no, EL won't allow your models to continue in any way as a part of the battle...

Kangodo wrote:

Beast wrote:
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? Yes.
Can EL (as a special rule) work in this case? No....

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

Yet again you change the rules to suit your argument

What part of "for them, the battle is over" are you complying with above? None of it? Then your argument is debunked....again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet again you change the rules to suit your argument

What part of "for them, the battle is over" are you complying with above? None of it? Then your argument is debunked....again.

Rescuing and 'the battle' are not defined in the BRB.
If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at GW for throwing so much fluffy language in their rules that it actually breaks them.

Kangodo wrote:
'the battle' are not defined in the BRB.

I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Kangodo wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet again you change the rules to suit your argument

What part of "for them, the battle is over" are you complying with above? None of it? Then your argument is debunked....again.

Rescuing and 'the battle' are not defined in the BRB.
If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at GW for throwing so much fluffy language in their rules that it actually breaks them.

That is a strict lie, or else you have failed to read the thread and notice the proof otherwise that Rigeld has repeatedly provided.

Which is it?

rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Oh really? I must have missed the part where the BRB explains what 'the battle' is.
Would that be on the same page where they explain that rescuing, saving and ressurection is the same thing? Because that might explain why nobody has ever read it.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Oh really? I must have missed the part where the BRB explains what 'the battle' is.
Would that be on the same page where they explain that rescuing, saving and ressurection is the same thing? Because that might explain why nobody has ever read it.

So, you havent bothered reading the thread? I suggest you go back and do us the courtesy of reading others arguments.

When youve found it, please apologise to Rigeld for the discourtesy youhave repeatedly shown them.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've proven that wrong. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Oh really? I must have missed the part where the BRB explains what 'the battle' is.
Would that be on the same page where they explain that rescuing, saving and ressurection is the same thing? Because that might explain why nobody has ever read it.

No one has read it?

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Battle is *defined* as the ENTIRE GAME

Can you quote the rule that defines it? Because my book only has that text once, just as a title.
And titles mean nothing when we are talking about rules.

Otherwise we just have to assume it's some sort of fluff.

So the Shooting Phase isn't defined?
And neither is the Movement Phase.
Or Special Rules - gosh.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So the Shooting Phase isn't defined?
And neither is the Movement Phase.
Or Special Rules - gosh.

"The Shooting Phase" is the title of a part of the rules that explains what the shooting phase is.
A quick scan of the pages gives at least 5 times the reference "shooting phase", telling us exactly what the shooting phase is.
But the part "Fighting a Battle" doesn't even reference once to a battle.

And that has been said multiple times already, why are you ignoring that?

rigeld2 wrote:Page 118 "points value of the two battling armies"
Page 118 "rest of the terrain for the battle"
Page 120 "Next, the players must set up terrain for the battle."
Page 120 "As you set up the scenery for your battle"

Should I keep looking, or is that enough to prove your assertion "doesn't even reference once to a battle" incorrect?

Sure seems like you read my proof and declined to respond.

I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

Kangodo wrote:
I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

But do you disagree with my citations as proving you incorrect that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle" ?

Could you cite where a Shooting Phase is defined for me? Page and Paragraph.

Page 12, right under the title.
"During the Shooting Phase, units armed with.."
"The shooting process can be summarized.."
Below "Nominate Unit to Shoot"
"The Turn" (pg 9) even tells us when a Shooting Phase starts and ends.

Where do we have that information about 'the Battle'?

The preface equates the Battle to the Eternal War Mission (This section presents the Eternal War missions) which is comprised of "The Armies, The Mission, The Battlefield, Deployment, First Turn, Game Length, Victory Conditions and Mission Special Rules"

The quotes I've provided previously support that, despite your assertion that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle".

Kangodo wrote:

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

Wrong.

SA specifically allows for special rules, to exempt models and units.

BRB Pg. 27: "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

EL specifically allows you a chance to bring, a specific model, back from the dead - not save it, but bring it back from the dead, after the SA is over.

This is a direct conflict with SA that says the model is removed from play for the rest of the game.

On Pg 7 the BRB specifically directs, that in the case of a conflict in the rules, you to defer to the codex.


If you really get down to it, the rule for SA, is in its self, a conflict and thus sets the stage for conflict with other rules - as it first specifically allows for a special rule and then turning around and saying no special rule is allowed.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Does SA say no special rules? No. It says no special rules can rescue them.
Is EL a special rule? Yes.
Is EL a special rule that saves them? No.

Wrong.

SA specifically allows for special rules, to exempt models and units.

BRB Pg. 27: "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage."

EL specifically allows you a chance to bring, a specific model, back from the dead - not save it, but bring it back from the dead, after the SA is over.

This is a direct conflict with SA that says the model is removed from play for the rest of the game.

On Pg 7 the BRB specifically directs, that in the case of a conflict in the rules, you to defer to the codex.


If you really get down to it, the rule for SA, is in its self, a conflict and thus sets the stage for conflict with other rules - as it first specifically allows for a special rule and then turning around and saying no special rule is allowed.

So you can show where in the EL rule it specifically calls out SA by name? Ya know, like ATSKNF.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

But do you disagree with my citations as proving you incorrect that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle" ?

There is a difference between 'referencing' the battle and 'defining' what it is.

Simply because something is referred to, it doesn't follow that it tells you what it is - whether 'the battle' is the entire game or a specific skirmish within the game, it is still left undefined, and could be read either way.

 Chopper Greg wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
I have read those 4 pages.
None of them define 'The Battle'.

But do you disagree with my citations as proving you incorrect that the section "doesn't even reference once to a battle" ?

There is a difference between 'referencing' the battle and 'defining' what it is.

Simply because something is referred to, it doesn't follow that it tells you what it is - whether 'the battle' is the entire game or a specific skirmish within the game, it is still left undefined, and could be read either way.

Did you not read where I quoted his words? He said the section didn't even reference once to a battle. I proved that wrong, unarguably.
I've since then gone on to show that Battle is equated with the Eternal War Mission, which is absolutely defined.

 Happyjew wrote:


So you can show where in the EL rule it specifically calls out SA by name? Ya know, like ATSKNF.

Can you show where GW has always specified rules?

Just a single example of where they didn't, would be the recent 8 page discussion of whether or not XV-8 Crisis Suits could take 2 identical weapons or not, simply because GW did not specifically say they could, until the recent FAQ change ( which for some reason doesn't show as an actual reversion ).


This is probably exactly why they say on BRB Pg 7, to defer to the codex, in case of conflict.


If GW does not want players to defer to the Necron codex over the SA rules, they will specifically FAQ against EL, but until then, Pg 7 of the BRB is still valid.

 Chopper Greg wrote:
Can you show where GW has always specified rules?

Just a single example of where they didn't, would be the recent 8 page discussion of whether or not XV-8 Crisis Suits could take 2 identical weapons or not, simply because GW did not specifically say they could, until the recent FAQ change ( which for some reason doesn't show as an actual reversion ).

There was no conflict, so there was no need to specify. If there was a rule that said unless otherwise specified a model can only have 1 of any given weapon, then there would have needed to be specification/

Chopper - there isnt a conflict. EL doesnt say "even if you are sweeping advanced" or "you may always play in the battle"

Kangodo - still waiting for you to apologise to Rigeld.

rigeld2 wrote:

Did you not read where I quoted his words? He said the section didn't even reference once to a battle. I proved that wrong, unarguably.
I've since then gone on to show that Battle is equated with the Eternal War Mission, which is absolutely defined.

These are not references to battle as a ruleswise defined war. These just use the word battle as in any text, fluff or nor. A word that is defined for use in game must have a specific definition and referencing to that word to avoid repeating the same rules over and over. Ie there is a difference in Leadership as a ruleswise defined word and the word leadership which can be used in text without referring to that rule. Battle is never defined as such.

I'm locking this as repetitive and circular. Both sides have more than adequately explained their positions.