Imhotek and a few Necron questions

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.

**BlackTalos**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
"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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter."

Here is the exact quote. I do not see the words "Sweeping Advance": It has not been "otherwise specified"

**Sigvatr**

Not sure what you want to say there Cthulhu, guessing editing?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Just presenting the data for all to see. I find it very difficult to have to go back and forth from the book when analyzing a rule. I prefer everything to be in the same place.
It's a convenience thing, really.

**nosferatu1001**

Sigvatr - where is sweeping advance SPECIFIED in the EL rules? It isn't.

You're cheating if you put an el model back, as for them the battle is over.

I'll give you a pointer as to what specified means as well ATSKNF. notice that contains the words " sweeping advance"? That is specifying.

RAW EL does not operate when a unit is sweeping advanced, as the EL rule does not specifically mention sweeping advance.

Oh, and as you know, from your selective quoting, I was addressing the timing fallacious argument you were making, in claiming that somehow el operates "after" SA, so is exempt. It isn't, and proving this by using a rule that was denied enpven thoug it always worked at least a turn later than el does to probe it, which I did.

**NL_Cirrus**

Oh, this again. Let's see iirc, the argument works something like; SA destroys the unit caught in it (being removed as a casualty) with no saves or special rules saving the unit, Well RP/EL doesn't save them they are removed so SA is carried out with EL counters in their place, so then you roll for RP/EL. But wait SA states for them the battle is over but does that actually mean they can't come back?

So the entire thing comes down to what "for them the battle is over" is really supposed to do, is it actually a rule and therefore denies RP/EL, is it just there as a little fluffy statement thing (that we all know are prevelant in the 6ed rule book), frankly I am not sure.

All I can say is in at least two rules that exempt some of the strange necron rules they explicitly say so, ie snap fireing weapons that don't roll to hit (monolith portal) and STR D vs RP/EL.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Actually, no.
The contention comes from "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

The "for them, this battle is over" is just a description showing how dead they are. It is not an actual rule.

**nosferatu1001**

That's the fallacious timing argument. Thing is, it didn't work in 4th and 5th either, with something that operated even later than el , so why does this now work?

It doesn't, there is a CLEAR instruction that "for them, the battle is over". Battle is defined, and you don't get much clearer than that.

Attempting to resurrect and save a unit with el is cheating.

**Imperator_Class**

You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

**Cryptek of Awesome**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesn't, there is a CLEAR instruction that "for them, the battle is over". Battle is defined, and you don't get much clearer than that.

I can't take any argument seriously that begins with the belief that "for them the battle is over" is an actual rule.

For the actual logical arguments that have been made - I do see the point about specific exception required and as a Necron player I've never really bothered to argue the point. In the rare case a model with EL doesn't have his EL counter surrounded by advancing enemies - hence negating EL anyway - I've just let him die. Hopefully the issue is addressed when the FAQs are updated and returned.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Imperator_Class wrote:
You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

No, it isn't. If there is nothing that could save them from being removed as a casualty, then EL, a rule that saves them from being casualties, would not work. There is no after.

Let me put it this way - does EL specify, anywhere, that it ignores Sweeping Advance? Because the SA rule very clearly states that it must be specified.

**rigeld2**

Imperator_Class wrote:
You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

And EL saves them from being a casualty, correct? As in, they are no longer a casualty if EL succeeds.

**sirlynchmob**

rigeld2 wrote:
Imperator_Class wrote:
You are right, no special rule or save can save them.

From being removed as a casualty.

It is only AFTER this has happened, that EL kicks in.

And EL saves them from being a casualty, correct? As in, they are no longer a casualty if EL succeeds.

no, the EL model is removed as a casualty

is EL a save? no
is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no
Does SA specifically deny EL like destroyer weapons do? no
Destroyer weapons calls EL a special roll.

so at the end of a phase, it can make it's special EL roll.

**Ghaz**

You can 'save' a model without making a saving roll. If the model remains in the game when normally it would have been removed then it was indeed 'saved'.

**Red Corsair**

Is EL saving your model? yesit is, so how is it not a save? please define save?

SA doesn't say its limited by pg 33.

You have the rest backwards, you need to provide proof that EL works after a SA not the opposite.

EL doesn't work after a SA.

Notice how ATSKNF SPECIFICALLY states it works on SA? That's the language EL requires.

**sirlynchmob**

Red Corsair wrote:
Is EL saving your model? yesit is, so how is it not a save? please define save?

SA doesn't say its limited by pg 33.

You have the rest backwards, you need to provide proof that EL works after a SA not the opposite.

EL doesn't work after a SA.

Notice how ATSKNF SPECIFICALLY states it works on SA? That's the language EL requires.

saves are defined on pg 16, to include armor, cover and invulns

like when other weapons ignore saves, that only applies to armor, cover, and invulns, not to RP and EL.

**Ghaz**

sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

**ian_destiny**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Necron Codex, page 29, under 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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols. If the model had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, it must be returned play, with a single Wound, within 3" of the counter. In either case, the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models. If the model is placed within coherency with one or more friendly units that it is eligible to join, it automatically joins one of those units (your choice). If the model was locked in close combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in. If the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return. If the roll was failed, removed the counter from play "

Sweeping Advance is not mentioned under the EL rules. Curiously, neither does the rule specified what happens to a EL counter in a unit that was wiped out.
Though that did receive an FAQ. Oddly, it seems that a unit that falls back has to remove EL counters as well.

Can you tell me what happens when a unit is destroyed by sweeping advanced?
From the rule book ,I can only say they are "removed as casualties", and this is the timing for Ever-living to act.
Ever-living is of course a special rule in a codex , and as codex special rule is stronger than the basic rule in BRB ,it will be used anytime a model is removed as a casulty .
If Sweeping Advance does not cause models "removed as casualties", Ever-living will never be used.

**sirlynchmob**

Ghaz wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

**rigeld2**

ian_destiny wrote:
Ever-living is of course a special rule in a codex , and as codex special rule is stronger than the basic rule in BRB ,it will be used anytime a model is removed as a casulty .
If Sweeping Advance does not cause models "removed as casualties", Ever-living will never be used.

I've underlined your confusion.
That statement is not always true.

Codex overrides BRB when there's a conflict.
SA says to remove models as casualties. EL says to place tokens.
SA says that no special rule can save the models (bringing them back is saving them). EL does not conflict with this. EL cannot bring them back.

To conflict you'd need a statement that says they can bring them back even if they were removed by SA.

**CthuluIsSpy**

ian_destiny wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Necron Codex, page 29, under 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 it was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter.

If the model had joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, and the roll was passed, it must be returned to play with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit as explained in Reanimation Protocols. If the model had not joined a unit when it was removed as a casualty, it must be returned play, with a single Wound, within 3" of the counter. In either case, the model must be placed at least 1" away from enemy models. If the model is placed within coherency with one or more friendly units that it is eligible to join, it automatically joins one of those units (your choice). If the model was locked in close combat when it 'died', and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in. If the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return. If the roll was failed, removed the counter from play "

Sweeping Advance is not mentioned under the EL rules. Curiously, neither does the rule specified what happens to a EL counter in a unit that was wiped out.
Though that did receive an FAQ. Oddly, it seems that a unit that falls back has to remove EL counters as well.

Can you tell me what happens when a unit is destroyed by sweeping advanced?
From the rule book ,I can only say they are "removed as casualties", and this is the timing for Ever-living to act.
Ever-living is of course a special rule in a codex , and as codex special rule is stronger than the basic rule in BRB ,it will be used anytime a model is removed as a casulty .
If Sweeping Advance does not cause models "removed as casualties", Ever-living will never be used.

Sweeping Advance also states that no special rule can be used, unless that Rule specifies that it ignores Sweeping Advance. Please read the second part of the Sweeping Advance rule.

**Ghaz**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

Assuming you're talking about the biomancy psychic power 'Enfeeble' then no, it's not a 'special rule' for the simple fact that nothing ever defines it as a special rule and not because it's not on pages 32-43 of the 6th edition rulebook. Also you'll find the following on page 32 of the rulebook:

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their own codex.

Trying to claim that 'Everliving' is not a special rule because it is not on page 32 of the rulebook is ludicrous and disproven by page 32 itself. If it says it is a special rule, then it is a special rule. 'Everliving' says it is a special rule, 'Enfeeble' does not.

**rigeld2**

sirlynchmob wrote:
not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

That is not what you've been told. Please don't misstate positions in an attempt to prove a point.

**sirlynchmob**

Ghaz wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

Assuming you're talking about the biomancy psychic power 'Enfeeble' then no, it's not a 'special rule' for the simple fact that nothing ever defines it as a special rule and not because it's not on pages 32-43 of the 6th edition rulebook. Also you'll find the following on page 32 of the rulebook:

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their own codex.

Trying to claim that 'Everliving' is not a special rule because it is not on page 32 of the rulebook is ludicrous and disproven by page 32 itself. If it says it is a special rule, then it is a special rule. 'Everliving' says it is a special rule, 'Enfeeble' does not.

except for pg 68, where it states maledictions can inflict special rules. and pg 32 models might get special rules as the result of a psychic power.

so please show how something that is called a special rule twice isn't, without also rendering EL into not being a SR.

so as EL is not a save nor a SR being used to save the model, it can.

I'm willing to concede that if you agree enfeeble is a SR than so is EL.

**Maelstrom808**

Hmmm....

*Looks at the unit entry for Necron Overlord on pg 30 of the codex. Sees "Ever-Living" listed under Special Rules right next to "Independent Character"*

So it's listed specifically as a "Special Rule "....how is it not a Special Rule again?

**Desubot**

Is EL really a saving throw though?

The thing is completely removed and off the table until the end of the phase once everything has been resolved.

In a sense the model was fully removed as a casulaty then fully resolved for that combat.

**Ghaz**

You're confusing what grants the special rule as the special rule itself. By your argument, a plasma pistol isn't a weapon but it's a 'special rule' because of Gets Hot.

'Enfeeble' is not a special rule because it is never noted as being a special rule and doesn't become one even if the affects were to give the affected model a special rule.

'Everliving' is a special rule because it is clearly noted as being such in Codex Necrons.

**Maelstrom808**

Desubot wrote:
Is EL really a saving throw though?

The thing is completely removed and off the table until the end of the phase once everything has been resolved.

In a sense the model was fully removed as a casulaty then fully resolved for that combat.

Of course it isn't. It is a special rule though that saves the model from being removed as a casualty.

I think the difference of the argument is the people that say you can use EL against SA are looking at "removed as a casualty" as simply an action.

I think those of us that are saying that you cannot use EL against SA look at "removed as a casualty" as an action and a status. Once you put the model back on the board with EL or RP, you change it's status from being removed as a casualty to being in play.

**Rorschach9**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

is EL a special rule as defined on pg 33? no

And per page 29 of Codex Necrons it most definitely is defined as a special rule.

not really, I've been told by the more vocal group on the site, that enfeeble is not a "special rule" because it is not on pg 32. So if enfeeble is not a special rule, than anything labeled a "necron special rule" is not a "special rule" as it's not found on pg 32.

Assuming you're talking about the biomancy psychic power 'Enfeeble' then no, it's not a 'special rule' for the simple fact that nothing ever defines it as a special rule and not because it's not on pages 32-43 of the 6th edition rulebook. Also you'll find the following on page 32 of the rulebook:

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their own codex.

Trying to claim that 'Everliving' is not a special rule because it is not on page 32 of the rulebook is ludicrous and disproven by page 32 itself. If it says it is a special rule, then it is a special rule. 'Everliving' says it is a special rule, 'Enfeeble' does not.

except for pg 68, where it states maledictions can inflict special rules. and pg 32 models might get special rules as the result of a psychic power.

so please show how something that is called a special rule twice isn't, without also rendering EL into not being a SR.

so as EL is not a save nor a SR being used to save the model, it can.

I'm willing to concede that if you agree enfeeble is a SR than so is EL.

Enfeeble is a psychic power and is not listed, ever, as a special rule. There are other Maledictions that cause special rules to be inflicted (and those Maledictions specify the special rules they inflict, for example, Objuration Mechanicum which specifies that it inflicts the Haywire special rule upon its victims, or Terrify which inflicts its victims with the Fear special rule - both make specific mention of an SR being inflicted, unlike Enfeeble).

So, no, Enfeeble is not an SR, Everliving however is explicitly a Special Rule.

**nosferatu1001**

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
It doesn't, there is a CLEAR instruction that "for them, the battle is over". Battle is defined, and you don't get much clearer than that.

I can't take any argument seriously that begins with the belief that "for them the battle is over" is an actual rule.

For the actual logical arguments that have been made - I do see the point about specific exception required and as a Necron player I've never really bothered to argue the point. In the rare case a model with EL doesn't have his EL counter surrounded by advancing enemies - hence negating EL anyway - I've just let him die. Hopefully the issue is addressed when the FAQs are updated and returned.

Sigh. Selective quoting for the loss there.

It is a clear instruction. After an equally clear rule you also seem to be ignoring.

**Sigvatr**

Current Necron codex FAQ, page 4, direct quote:

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.

All of us should have looked into the FAQ first, including myself. And I pity all Necron players that have been outright cheated by you, nosferatu.