Reanimation Protocols and Challenges

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.

**Janthkin**

KNOCK IT OFF.

Next person who posts about Sweeping Advance in THIS thread gets a vacation for the weekend.

**DeathReaper**

rigeld2 wrote:
copper.talos wrote:
You may think that your attitude may prevent me from speaking my mind but it got me the same attitude when I argued that JotWW shouldn't cancel RP. Faq agrees.
Same attitude when I argued that Nightscythe's passengers shouldn't take damage after crashing. Faq agrees.
Same still when I argued MSS should be applied to force weapons. FAQ agrees.
So getting the same attiude, especially when it comes from the same people won't do much.

Yes, the FAQ changed the rules in 2 cases. You're absolutely incorrect if you think the actual rules said that beforehand for Jaws and the Nightscythe.
That's my point. You can argue intent all you want - I agreed with you on Jaws overall. And I argued the same side as you on MSS. That has nothing to do with what the rules actually say.
And I've never said that GW could not rule the other way - that'd be ludicrous. But you need to separate intent from what's actually written.

GW "agreeing" with you means nothing. Or should I go through and find all the times GW "agreed" with me?

The FAQ changed the rules in all 3 cases actually. but that is neither here nor there.

**Dozer Blades**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
copper.talos wrote:
@Super Ready I agree "Let the OP decide that". How is that possible when the OP obviously is not very knowledgeable about Necrons and a heavily disputed issue is presented to him as an official ruling? He'll obviously think that opinion as canon. So it does matter how one presents an issue. With Necrons,there have been quite a few major issues, with a few people claiming their opinion as "RAW" or "rule based" every time, only to be proved wrong again and again after a faq ie RP and JotWW. The same people apparently continue to do so. It's simply a matter of forum-etiquete to present a issue as it is, "unresolved' in this case.

When you can present an argument that doesnt ignore the Sweeping Advance rule, then you can claim the argument is "unresolved"

Every single one of yoru argument fails a very simple hurdle - you are saving a unit when you are EXPLICITLY TOLD this is not possible, UNLESS you rule says otherwise.

Until GW changes the rules, and states that EL does allow you to come back from being SA'd, your position is *wrong* as regards the real, actual, written rules. Nothing you present on here about this issue being "unresolved" can alter this.

Your houserule is fine, however pretending it is real is not.

You can't SA a dead unit. So if the accompanying unit (say Immortals) doesn't break he can roll foe EL.

**Fragile**

Just let it lie, the OP can read the other post and decide on his own whether it works or not. There is no need to beat a dead horse here with it.

**Yad**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
copper.talos wrote:
@Super Ready I agree "Let the OP decide that". How is that possible when the OP obviously is not very knowledgeable about Necrons and a heavily disputed issue is presented to him as an official ruling? He'll obviously think that opinion as canon. So it does matter how one presents an issue. With Necrons,there have been quite a few major issues, with a few people claiming their opinion as "RAW" or "rule based" every time, only to be proved wrong again and again after a faq ie RP and JotWW. The same people apparently continue to do so. It's simply a matter of forum-etiquete to present a issue as it is, "unresolved' in this case.

When you can present an argument that doesnt ignore the Sweeping Advance rule, then you can claim the argument is "unresolved"

Every single one of yoru argument fails a very simple hurdle - you are saving a unit when you are EXPLICITLY TOLD this is not possible, UNLESS you rule says otherwise.

Until GW changes the rules, and states that EL does allow you to come back from being SA'd, your position is *wrong* as regards the real, actual, written rules. Nothing you present on here about this issue being "unresolved" can alter this.

Your houserule is fine, however pretending it is real is not.

You're just as wrong here as you were about MSS and Force. Even with the change to the Sweeping Advance rule (RFPaaC) you still insist that you don't get an EL roll. Rolling for EL does not constitute a save. SA has done what it's supposed to do and destroyed the unit. What happens after the unit is destroyed is of no consequence or interest to the SA rule.

-Yad

**nosferatu1001**

Apart from the part of the rule which states that the unit will play no part in the battle? That part you conveniently omit?

I did not day el was a save, the 40k term, but it does save the unit, the normal English usage which the context of the rule uses. Please correct your fallacious misrepresentation before commenting further

**Janthkin**

Janthkin wrote:
KNOCK IT OFF.

Next person who posts about Sweeping Advance in THIS thread gets a vacation for the weekend.

I didn't think I was particularly unclear, but it seems some of you missed the point, and are now enjoying Dakka-free weekends.