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.

EL does not conflict with SA.

An SA removes a unit as casualties with no opportunity to save it. Unfortunately, EL does not trigger until after the unit has been swept and "removed as a casualty". Is it useful? Not really, since the enemy will most likely just stand on top of the counter.

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

This does not refer to the question in this topic. This Faq refers to the unit being destroyed by conventional method's i believe.

Stratos wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

This does not refer to the question in this topic. This Faq refers to the unit being destroyed by conventional method's i believe.

It does refer to it as it refers to a unit being wiped out which is exactly what happens if it gets swept. The only case where this does not happen and even Everliving rolls are denied is when the unit runs off the board and this is also specificed in the FAQ.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Stratos wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

This does not refer to the question in this topic. This Faq refers to the unit being destroyed by conventional method's i believe.

It does refer to it as it refers to a unit being wiped out which is exactly what happens if it gets swept. The only case where this does not happen and even Everliving rolls are denied is when the unit runs off the board and this is also specificed in the FAQ.

Could you please refer me to your Esp provider?

How do you know the context of this statement is referring to something that it is not inferred it refers to? A unit can be "Wiped out" quoted for the fact it is a vague statement in a variety of matters for example, Every kind of weapon, attack, rule, that can kill a unit in the whole 40k universe. I would list them individually but i would be bored by the time i even got to "Boltgun".

 Sigvatr wrote:
It does refer to it as it refers to a unit being wiped out which is exactly what happens if it gets swept. The only case where this does not happen and even Everliving rolls are denied is when the unit runs off the board and this is also specificed in the FAQ.

What else happens when a unit gets swept? Are there any additional rules concerning that?

 Sigvatr wrote:
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.

Ah, that gakky FAQ again. Note how it only mentions wiping out in general, and not the specific case of the unit being removed as a result of sweeping advance?

So the more specific rules for SA can just be ignored to justify your outright cheating position? No thanks, I'll stick to the clear as day, brilliantly straightforward rule that NO SPECIAL RULE CAN SAVE THE UNIT unless, and the part you ignore repeatedly, it specifies it works against sweeping advance. EL does not do so, so it does not work against SA . Simple, clear, and exactly as written.

You're trying to save the unit. Rule broken, cheating attempted.

The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

Removed from play. You might want to look that up. The unit is not saved. It is *removed from play*.

"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

I am baffled and disappointed by you being ready to cheat your opponent. Not sure why, just because you hate Necrons? Outright rejecting official FAQs is just insulting for YMDC.

As we're baffled by your refusal to believe that you can use a special rule to save the model from being swept when the rules say you can't use a special rule to save the model.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

Removed from play. You might want to look that up. The unit is not saved. It is *removed from play*.

"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

I am baffled and disappointed by you being ready to cheat your opponent. Not sure why, just because you hate Necrons? Outright rejecting official FAQs is just insulting for YMDC.

I'm baffled by your refusal to answer your opposition when they prove your argument void.

Which is disappointing as in general i believe it is intended to work.

I have seen and taken part in this discussion a number of times.... In the end each side has a non-concrete stance. My local group as looked at all the rules and we play it that swept EL models do not place a token but model that died in combat still can use their EL.

What is the book's definition of Destroyed? The only answer I can find is that the models are removed as casualties.

Before anyone starts calling anyone a cheater ask yourself if you move drop pods 1" away from enemy models when inertial guidance is triggered. If you answer yes you are using a RAI not RAW interpretation which is what many players of Necrons believe they are doing when using EL to return a destroyed model to play.

Can someone give me a page for the specific rule over riding general rules rule from the BRB? I see it quoted as gospel in virtually every thread yet I do not remember anyone backing it up with a page number. Is it a continued convention from the past or is there an actual rule backing up this stance?

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

Sigvatr wrote:The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

Removed from play. You might want to look that up. The unit is not saved. It is *removed from play*.

So when you put the unit back on the board, the unit has not been saved by a special rule? Are you SURE on that?

How about when a medic takes a clinically dead person and restarts their heart - has the medic saved them?

Sigvatr wrote:"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

"Spite"? As a necron player, I sincerely hope you withdraw that insult and denegration to anothers character. Shame on you.

Oh, and I never said the unit has not been removed from play. That is a lie that you have created to try to make your position seem slightly more sound. They are, indeed, removed from play. Attempting to put them back on is saving them, and is doing so through a special rule, and a special ruel that doesnt specify it works against Sweeping Advance. AKA Cheating.

Sigvatr wrote:I am baffled and disappointed by you being ready to cheat your opponent. Not sure why, just because you hate Necrons? Outright rejecting official FAQs is just insulting for YMDC.

As is your rejecting of:
a) every rule refuting your cheating position
b) every poster showing your flawed, destroyed argument for what it is - flawed, refuted, unarguably corrupted by a failure to read even the most basic ruels in the BRB - and the insults you pile on them, claiming they are arguing frmoa position of bias

Retract your lies, spiteful accusations of bias, and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as your argument is refuted. RAW EL helps not one jot against SA. Returning the unit to play - SAVING the unit - is cheating. Unarguably, unutterably so.

 Sigvatr wrote:
"Removed from play" and "saved" are two mutually exclusive terms. Even Everliving states that the unit is removed from play so I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that the unit is not removed from play. Spite?

Incorrect. Everliving never mentions a unit being removed from play. Perhaps you're getting unit confused with model?

Instead of assuming people aren't debating honestly (and throwing words around like "cheat" and "spite"), perhaps you should step back and actually read the rules you're attempting to quote.

"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage;"

"at this stage" .... at what stage? At the stage where they have been "swept" I'd have said.

EL rolls take place at the end of the phase, that's "at another stage" .

I'm not convinced the Sweeping Advance prohibition on saves and other special rules extends beyond the ability to prevent the sweeping advance to the extent where it prevents Ever Living.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage;"

"at this stage" .... at what stage? At the stage where they have been "swept" I'd have said.

EL rolls take place at the end of the phase, that's "at another stage" .

I'm not convinced the Sweeping Advance prohibition on saves and other special rules extends beyond the ability to prevent the sweeping advance to the extent where it prevents Ever Living.

WBB operated the turn after, at the earliest. "At this stage" has not altered since 4th edition. WBB was an example of a rule that oculd not save the unit.
That interpretation is flawed, as pointed out.

Again, from page 27 of the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition rulebook (emphasis added):

The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

'Everliving' is listed as a special rule in Codex Necrons and does not specify that it works when swept. Therefore per the rules when swept 'Everliving' does not come into play and for the model "... the battle is over".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

It's the timing that's decisive here. We are still talking of Sweeping Advance and its specifications here. As soon as the model is swept and removed as a casualty, Sweeping Advance is over and done. After this happened, EL kicks in. This is why it does not contradict Sweeping Advance, this is why EL is specifically worded differently from RP and this is why the order of operations is very important when having a look at how rules works.

 Ghaz wrote:

The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

Explanation above.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

As is your rejecting of
a) every rule refuting your cheating position
b) every poster showing your flawed, destroyed argument for what it is - flawed, refuted, unarguably corrupted by a failure to read even the most basic ruels in the BRB - and the insults you pile on them, claiming they are arguing frmoa position of bias

Retract your lies, spiteful accusations of bias, and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as your argument is refuted. RAW EL helps not one jot against SA. Returning the unit to play - SAVING the unit - is cheating. Unarguably, unutterably so.

You reject basic logical assumptions / argumentation and official, GW-published FAQs (along with the basic, underlying rules) because they do not follow your HYWPI interpretation of the rules and claim everyone disagreeing with being a cheater while you are indeed the one cheating. And lest not remember who of us started calling others cheaters, hm?

You are fine to play how you want, nosferatu, and I think, personally, that it's fine to play it your way if your opponents agree with your interpretation. Seeing as this is YMDC, however, I prefer sticking to the rules at hand.

Except 'Everliving' doesn't work when you're swept so you wouldn't place a counter. No counter, no returning the model to play.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except 'Everliving' doesn't work when you're swept so you wouldn't place a counter. No counter, no returning the model to play.

Exactly. EL works after you were swept, as specified in the rule itself / Necron FAQ.

And again, it STILL doesn't work even with you're imaginary timing trying to ignore the rules. No counter, no returning to play.

 Ghaz wrote:
And again, it STILL doesn't work even with you're imaginary timing trying to ignore the rules. No counter, no returning to play.

And again, it STILL does work even with your imaginary timing trying to ignore the rules.

Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

It's the timing that's decisive here. We are still talking of Sweeping Advance and its specifications here. As soon as the model is swept and removed as a casualty, Sweeping Advance is over and done. After this happened, EL kicks in. This is why it does not contradict Sweeping Advance, this is why EL is specifically worded differently from RP and this is why the order of operations is very important when having a look at how rules works.

Wrong.

Again, has the UNIT been saved? Yes. Therfore a rule was broken.

Sigvatr wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

The destroyed unit is immediately removed as casualties. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

Explanation above.

So you are trying to save the unit but think doing it later works? Interesting way to try to break the rules.

Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

As is your rejecting of
a) every rule refuting your cheating position
b) every poster showing your flawed, destroyed argument for what it is - flawed, refuted, unarguably corrupted by a failure to read even the most basic ruels in the BRB - and the insults you pile on them, claiming they are arguing frmoa position of bias

Retract your lies, spiteful accusations of bias, and mark your posts as "HYWPI", as your argument is refuted. RAW EL helps not one jot against SA. Returning the unit to play - SAVING the unit - is cheating. Unarguably, unutterably so.

You reject basic logical assumptions / argumentation and official, GW-published FAQs (along with the basic, underlying rules) because they do not follow your HYWPI interpretation of the rules and claim everyone disagreeing with being a cheater while you are indeed the one cheating. And lest not remember who of us started calling others cheaters, hm?

You are fine to play how you want, nosferatu, and I think, personally, that it's fine to play it your way if your opponents agree with your interpretation. Seeing as this is YMDC, however, I prefer sticking to the rules at hand.

So no apology for your lies? I noted your again inabiltiy to respond substantively, selecting quotes to avoid the parts where you lied about what was written in order to make your argument seem more sound. Or the part where you accused someone of argunig froma position of bias against the army.

I have not rejected the FAQ. I even stated exactly how the FAQ is overwritten by the MORE SPECIFIC SA rule. Apparently the concept of specific > general is something you are not familiar with - the FAQ is not relevant as a more specific rule takes its place. There are elementary explanations of this concept if this is needed, which I suggest you review before going further.

I have stuck to the rules, you are breaking them, lying about others arguments and stating they are arguing a point for personal gain. WHen corrected on this, and a request is made for an apology, you ignore it.

Your posts will be consisdered "HYWPI" in future, as you cannot seem to argue in good faith. Good day.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again, has the UNIT been saved? Yes. Therfore a rule was broken.

Explanation why this assumption is wrong has been given multiple times already. Look it up in my previous posts, google it on other forums etc. Not going to explain it thrice.

So no apology for your lies? I noted your again inabiltiy to respond substantively, selecting quotes to avoid the parts where you lied about what was written in order to make your argument seem more sound. Or the part where you accused someone of argunig froma position of bias against the army.

I have not rejected the FAQ. I even stated exactly how the FAQ is overwritten by the MORE SPECIFIC SA rule. Apparently the concept of specific > general is something you are not familiar with - the FAQ is not relevant as a more specific rule takes its place. There are elementary explanations of this concept if this is needed, which I suggest you review before going further.

I have stuck to the rules, you are breaking them, lying about others arguments and stating they are arguing a point for personal gain. WHen corrected on this, and a request is made for an apology, you ignore it.

Your posts will be consisdered "HYWPI" in future, as you cannot seem to argue in good faith. Good day.

That's a mighty high horse you got there, might be careful dropping off it. Ride into the sunset, Don Quijote. Yeeeehaw.

No it doesn't. We've shown you actual rules that back up our position. All you've done is make imaginary reasons as to why it does, each and every one we've disproved. Now how about showing how you can make an 'Everliving' roll without a counter, or are you just going to keep trolling?

 Ghaz wrote:
No it doesn't. We've shown you actual rules that back up our position. All you've done is make imaginary reasons as to why it does, each and every one we've disproved. Now how about showing how you can make an 'Everliving' roll without a counter, or are you just going to keep trolling?

How about you show me where exactly SA and EL conflict?

EL is an attempt to rescue the unit. WHat does SA prohibit again? Oh, yes, Special Rules that try to rescue the unit.

So, found any rules yet? Or an apology for your lying? Or for where you decided I and others are arguing from a position of bias against Necrons? Nothing?

Please, per the tenets of the forum, mark your arguments as "HYWPI" as you have failed to back them up with rules quotes / citations. You have quoted rules, but nothing that actually backs up your argument.

How can a unit be removed as casualties? Wouldn't it be removed as a casualty? Can someone define destroyed for me based off of rules?

 Ghaz wrote:
Except 'Everliving' doesn't work when you're swept so you wouldn't place a counter. No counter, no returning the model to play.

Why doesn't Ever Living work while you are swept? What specifically denies the placement of a counter?
The placing of a counter does not "save the unit" in fact a sucessful EL roll doesn't save the unit either, they all still die, it just some are brought back from the dead.

Justicar Thawn and St Celestine have similar rules that allow them to come back from the dead.

I say again the "no special rule can save the unit" has been extended far beyond it's remit. It can only mean that there is no special rule that can stop the unit being swept ..... OH except "And they shall know know fear" which as it turns out IS a special rule that saves the unit. Yes it specifically says it does but the point is it, it stops the unit being swept at all, it doesn't say the unit is swept but comes back from the dead. EL does that, the Necron are still caught they still die like the carp BUT the Ever Living characters can still get back up.

The sweep is not prevented, the unit is not saved, the Necron just reanimate, Like Thrawn and St Celestine


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
EL is an attempt to rescue the unit. WHat does SA prohibit again? Oh, yes, Special Rules that try to rescue the unit.argument.

This is where we are going wrong. EL is not an attempt to save the unit, The unit is dead. In fact it HAS to be dead before you can attempt EL.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
EL is an attempt to rescue the unit. WHat does SA prohibit again? Oh, yes, Special Rules that try to rescue the unit.

So, found any rules yet? Or an apology for your lying? Or for where you decided I and others are arguing from a position of bias against Necrons? Nothing?

Please, per the tenets of the forum, mark your arguments as "HYWPI" as you have failed to back them up with rules quotes / citations. You have quoted rules, but nothing that actually backs up your argument.

I am still waiting for you to point exactly to the rules where EL prevents the unit from being removed as a casualty. Open to any suggestions, right now.

Maybe you are just making a misunderstanding here and you aren't cheating on purpose?

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire "unit cannot be saved" part is completely void by the rule's very definition. The unit is not saved. The unit is swept, killed and, literally, removed from play as a casualty.

So placing the unit back on the field isn't saving the unit?
Are you sure about that?

It's the timing that's decisive here. We are still talking of Sweeping Advance and its specifications here. As soon as the model is swept and removed as a casualty, Sweeping Advance is over and done. After this happened, EL kicks in. This is why it does not contradict Sweeping Advance, this is why EL is specifically worded differently from RP and this is why the order of operations is very important when having a look at how rules works.

Sweeping Advances says that no special rule can save the unit at this stage.
Those last three words are important and you're ignoring them. Perhaps it's a language issue, but "at this stage" means "from now until the next stage". Since we're never told that it's okay to bring them back now, it never is.
And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.