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.

rigeld2 wrote:

And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

There is nothing beyond your opinion that says that though. There is zero RAW for that mate, not a jot.

The EL rules actually say that at the end of the phase you can attempt bring the unit back. That isn't saving it, it is resurrecting it.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Placing the EL token, though, takes place after SA, thus SA is not taken into consideration for the special rule to happen. The part in SA denying any saves or any special rule states that nothing can be done to save the unit from being destroyed and EL doesn't do so - in the contrary, the rule itself clearly states that the unit in question is removed as a casualty. That is the key factor here and the reason why this specific part of the SA rule is not taken into consideration or rather does not conflict with EL.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And simply placing the EL token is an attempt to bring the unit back, something which the SA rules do not allow.

There is nothing beyond your opinion that says that though. There is zero RAW for that mate, not a jot.

Really? So you're placing the EL token to not save the unit? The special rule allowing you to place the token disagrees, "mate".

The EL rules actually say that at the end of the phase you can attempt bring the unit back. That isn't saving it, it is resurrecting it.

No, they do not. The EL rules never, ever, say that you can attempt to bring the unit back. Please don't make up rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Placing the EL token, though, takes place after SA, thus SA is not taken into consideration for the special rule to happen. The part in SA denying any saves or any special rule states that nothing can be done to save the unit from being destroyed and EL doesn't do so - in the contrary, the rule itself clearly states that the unit in question is removed as a casualty. That is the key factor here and the reason why this specific part of the SA rule is not taken into consideration or rather does not conflict with EL.

The underlined is incorrect - placing the token happens when the model is removed, not at some indeterminate point after.
And no, EL literally never says "that the unit in question is removed as a casualty". It's a model based rule, not a unit based one.

rigeld2 wrote:

And no, EL literally never says "that the unit in question is removed as a casualty". It's a model based rule, not a unit based one.

Ah, my bad, I use unit and model as synonyms in cases where it's appropriate as techically, even a single model is a unit too. In this very case, you can replace "unit" and "model" without any harm done, unless you think there is a specific reason not to?

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And no, EL literally never says "that the unit in question is removed as a casualty". It's a model based rule, not a unit based one.

Ah, my bad, I use unit and model as synonyms in cases where it's appropriate as techically, even a single model is a unit too. In this very case, you can replace "unit" and "model" without any harm done, unless you think there is a specific reason not to?

They're never synonyms, especially when you say things like "The EL rules actually say that at the end of the phase you can attempt bring the unit back" and the EL rules don't actually say that.
A single model is a single model unit. They're different things. Conflating them creates confusion.

Does SA destroy the unit or the model? Does putting the a unit back on the table save the unit?

When a character comes back as a result of EL, it's a new unit.

Also, EL is a special rule, and is referred to as such in the FAQ: (potentially relevant FAQ entries posted)
http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/Necrons.pdf



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.

=====
Q: If a unit with one or more reanimation protocols or ever-living
counters fails its Morale check and falls back off the table, what
happens to the counters and the models they represent? (p29)
A: They are lost and no Reanimation Protocols/Ever-living rolls
are made.

===
On the second one, I'd argue that if the EL character was alive and ran off the board, no roll for him, but if he died and the rest of his unit ran off the board, EL is a go.

rigeld2 wrote:

A single model is a single model unit. They're different things. Conflating them creates confusion.

Does SA destroy the unit or the model? Does putting the a unit back on the table save the unit?

Correct on the upper part, I tried to say so in the previous post, hope that was clear. Kinda

SA destroys the entire unit if the model with EL was part of the unit when it was swept. A character model that is part of a unit, however, does not cease being a character model, it still is different from another rank-and-file model in the unit. A Court member, e.g. is still a court member and not a Necron Warrior and therefore keeps its special rules. As others (or you, can't remember, sorry) have already pointed out, EL is a rule that always belongs to a single model, not a whole unit. That's why all regular troops with WBB will die and cannot place a marker on the board: they got WBB whereas only the character has the EL special rule.

 loreweaver wrote:
When a character comes back as a result of EL, it's a new unit.

Citation needed. So it's a victory point for a destroyed unit every time?
And Dark Eldar get lots of PFP tokens?

Q: When does a unit with Power from Pain gain a pain token for
destroying a model/unit with the ability to return to play? (p25)
A: The model/unit must be completely destroyed so the unit
will only gain a pain token once the model/unit is completely
removed from play.

Oh - nope. It doesn't. So your statement is incorrect.

Cross-referencing rules from other codices, especially those with different mechanics, is not a valid measure to debate RAW, it's used to debate RAI.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A single model is a single model unit. They're different things. Conflating them creates confusion.

Does SA destroy the unit or the model? Does putting the a unit back on the table save the unit?

Correct on the upper part, I tried to say so in the previous post, hope that was clear. Kinda

Also, selectively editing when quoting is annoying unless you're only responding to part of the post.

SA destroys the entire unit if the model with EL was part of the unit when it was swept. A character model that is part of a unit, however, does not cease being a character model, it still is different from another rank-and-file model in the unit. A Court member, e.g. is still a court member and not a Necron Warrior and therefore keeps its special rules. As others (or you, can't remember, sorry) have already pointed out, EL is a rule that always belongs to a single model, not a whole unit. That's why all regular troops with WBB will die and cannot place a marker on the board: they got WBB whereas only the character has the EL special rule.

First of all, it's Reanimation Protocols, not WBB.
Second, nothing you said answered my second question - Does putting a unit back on the table save the unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Cross-referencing rules from other codices, especially those with different mechanics, is not a valid measure to debate RAW, it's used to debate RAI.

False.
I cited the FAQ to prove that the EL character is the same unit it left the table as.

rigeld2 wrote:

First of all, it's Reanimation Protocols, not WBB.

TruCron player, sticking to it

Second, nothing you said answered my second question - Does putting a unit back on the table save the unit?

The only unit that can do so is the Royal Court as it is the only unit where everyone has the EL special rule. If we're talking unit /= model here, as fielding a single Imotekh would still make him a unit. 1-man-unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

False.
I cited the FAQ to prove that the EL character is the same unit it left the table as.

False. RAW-wise, the only thing you did was quoting the DE rule. Everything you derived from that comparison is RAI / HYWPI, not RAW.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Second, nothing you said answered my second question - Does putting a unit back on the table save the unit?

The only unit that can do so is the Royal Court as it is the only unit where everyone has the EL special rule. If we're talking unit /= model here, as fielding a single Imotekh would still make him a unit. 1-man-unit.

So a Lord attached to a unit of Warriors - if the entire unit is shot to death and the Lord stands back up, is that a new RC unit or the same Warrior unit?
Please cite rules to support your answer.

False. RAW-wise, the only thing you did was quoting the DE rule. Everything you derived from that comparison is RAI / HYWPI, not RAW.

Then answer the question:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

rigeld2 wrote:

So a Lord attached to a unit of Warriors - if the entire unit is shot to death and the Lord stands back up, is that a new RC unit or the same Warrior unit?
Please cite rules to support your answer.

It is a new unit, he now is a 1-man unit. Necron FAQ, p.4:

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.

rigeld2 wrote:
Then answer the question:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

1 VP for slaying the enemy warlord, assuming that he was the enemy warlord and not the secondary HQ.

The FAQ's are in disarray.

There was a CSM entry in a FAQ that stated that you only got a boon roll if ever-living was failed.

I also remember reading that you "always got" an EL roll, even if the unit was swept. I can find neither reference in the FAQ's on black library.

Something is up though, if you look at the rulebook one, it's clearly been edited since the original September update...

Anyone with a digital 'cron dex handy that clarifies EL? Mine iPad's at homezor.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So a Lord attached to a unit of Warriors - if the entire unit is shot to death and the Lord stands back up, is that a new RC unit or the same Warrior unit?
Please cite rules to support your answer.

It is a new unit, he now is a 1-man unit. Necron FAQ, p.4:

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.

That FAQ never says he's a new unit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Then answer the question:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

1 VP for slaying the enemy warlord, assuming that he was the enemy warlord and not the secondary HQ.

According to your assertion above I've destroyed 4 units. Why would I only get 1 point? Assume Purge The Alien as that apparently wasn't clear.

rigeld2 wrote:

That FAQ never says he's a new unit.

Of course it does O_o It even refers to his former unit as his...well.."former unit". Also refer to Ever-Living, as it explicitely makes a difference between the EL model and the unit it joined.

According to your assertion above I've destroyed 4 units. Why would I only get 1 point? Assume Purge The Alien as that apparently wasn't clear.

VP are counted at the end of the game. If the Overlord is dead at the end of the game, you get 1 VP for killing him and 1 VP for killing his unit (if he was in one before he / they died). Refer to your opponent's army list if you want to know which units he had at the start of the game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That FAQ never says he's a new unit.

Of course it does O_o It even refers to his former unit as his...well.."former unit".

It doesn't ever use the word "former". Please, when attempting to quote things, actually use words that are there instead of making them up.

According to your assertion above I've destroyed 4 units. Why would I only get 1 point? Assume Purge The Alien as that apparently wasn't clear.

VP are counted at the end of the game. If the Overlord is dead at the end of the game, you get 1 VP for killing him and 1 VP for killing his unit (if he was in one before he / they died). Refer to your opponent's army list if you want to know which units he had at the start of the game.

p126 BRB wrote:At the end of the game, each player receives 1Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed.

How many units have I completely destroyed?

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't ever use the word "former". Please, when attempting to quote things, actually use words that are there instead of making them up.

My bad, EL does. I do acknowledge you agreeing in general though.

rigeld2 wrote:

How many units have I completely destroyed?

I'm not even sure if you're trolling now or if you seriously are not familiar with the very basics of playing a 40k game, i.e. calculating VP. Tending to assume the former.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't ever use the word "former". Please, when attempting to quote things, actually use words that are there instead of making them up.

My bad, EL does. I do acknowledge you agreeing in general though.

I'm not agreeing in general. The lack of the word you used to make your argument means... it doesn't help your argument.
And EL does not use the word former. Anywhere on page 29. Again, when attempting to cite rules, please do so correctly.

rigeld2 wrote:
How many units have I completely destroyed?

I'm not even sure if you're trolling now or if you seriously are not familiar with the very basics of playing a 40k game, i.e. calculating VP. Tending to assume the former.

No, it's an honest question that has a simple answer. Please answer it and don't avoid the question.

rigeld2 wrote:
Please answer it and don't avoid the question.

BRB, p.122, 123, 127. States exactly when you get VP, how many, how and which units and even models are affected.

Apologies for the "former" issue, the wording was incorrect whereas the point got across. I'd appreciate you doing some reading up on basic rules in return or opening a new thread in YMDC on how VP are calculated.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Please answer it and don't avoid the question.

BRB, p.122, 123, 127. States exactly when you get VP, how many, how and which units and even models are affected.

Apologies for the "former" issue, the wording was incorrect whereas the point got across. I'd appreciate you doing some reading up on basic rules in return or opening a new thread in YMDC on how VP are calculated.

I quoted the rule on page 127 I'm referring to. Please answer my question or explain why you won't. It's a single number.

And no, the point didn't get across because of your incorrect wording. You've failed to explain your point. Utterly. Please understand I'm not mocking - in my last post I asked you to cite rules to support your argument, and in response you said "the point got across". Please try again.

Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

I want you to give me a number. It's an honest, on topic question. Why are you refusing to provide it?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

I want you to give me a number. It's an honest, on topic question. Why are you refusing to provide it?

Instead of making a point, you resort to continous questions despite knowing the answer already. This is nothing but mocking or trolling and I'm not jumping on that bandwagon. You got two possibilites:

a) If you are really experiencing trouble with VP calculation and Necrons / WWB, open a YMDC thread. I and others will be glad (honestly) to help you out.

b) Cut the trolling and state your point.

Anything else is a waste of time. YMDC is supposed to provide answers to honest questions. Your question is not an honest question as you know the answer already.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Just to get this right: a person with 16k posts is pretending to not be mocking or trolling but wants to make others believe that he is unable to properly calculate VP despite the exact rules given to him?

The answer to your question is as basic as it can be. If you cannot answer it on your own, open a new thread in YMDC. If not, snap out of it and get your point across. Straight.

I want you to give me a number. It's an honest, on topic question. Why are you refusing to provide it?

Instead of making a point, you resort to continous questions despite knowing the answer already. This is nothing but mocking or trolling and I'm not jumping on that bandwagon. You got two possibilites:

a) If you are really experiencing trouble with VP calculation and Necrons / WWB, open a YMDC thread. I and others will be glad (honestly) to help you out.

b) Cut the trolling and state your point.

Anything else is a waste of time.

Sigh.

I don't know the answer. Or at least, I don't know what the answer is using your argument.
Using the actual rules (where the unit isn't a new one every time) the answer is 1 (or 2 if it's the Warlord). Using your argument (where a EL model that stands back up alone is a new unit) the answer would be 4 (or 5 if it's the warlord).
Is that correct?

What kind of unit is a Lord who used to be a member of a Warrior unit? Is he scoring?

Thanks.

1-3 (1 normal individual (!) character, 2 if also warlord, 3 if he was part of a unit that got swept, as you get 1 for the unit) is correct. The reason is that you count VP at the end of the game. Only units destroyed at that point count towards the VP you receive and in order to know how many units your enemy had, you refer to his army list.

Exceptions are listed on p. 127 (fleeing in last turn, not on board, etc.).

/e: Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Thanks.

1-3 (1 normal individual (!) character, 2 if also warlord, 3 if he was part of a unit that got swept, as you get 1 for the unit) is correct. The reason is that you count VP at the end of the game. Only units destroyed at that point count towards the VP you receive and in order to know how many units your enemy had, you refer to his army list.

I've completely destroyed 4 different (according to your argument) units.
Please show rules support for the underlined.
Do Termagants spawned by a Tervigon give Victory Points? After all, they don't show up on my Army List.

/e: Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

Lord. Since I said Lord and not Overlord...

I got no idea how the Termagant issue is handled but would imagine that there are special rules for said issue in the corresponding codex.

I would have to look the scoring issue up, RAW-wise, but I'd consider them being part of the unit as they lack the individual character rule and aren't part of the original unit either. I'd treat them in the same way as Wolfguard. Feel free to RAW it up.

/e: Okay, screw this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533174.page

I asked you to stop the trolling, and you're doing the exact same thing, again, asking questions you already know the answer to and even answered in this very forum. Go troll someone else, thanks. Bye.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I got no idea how the Termagant issue is handled but would imagine that there are special rules for said issue in the corresponding codex.

I would have to look the scoring issue up, RAW-wise, but I'd consider them being part of the unit as they lack the individual character rule and aren't part of the original unit either. I'd treat them in the same way as Wolfguard. Feel free to RAW it up.

/e: Okay, screw this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/533174.page

I asked you to stop the trolling, and you're doing the exact same thing, again, asking questions you already know the answer to and even answered in this very forum. Go troll someone else, thanks. Bye.

It's a valid debate tactic to prove to you why your assertions were wrong.
It's more adult to admit you were wrong than to call me a troll when I demonstrably wasn't.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Are you referring to a regular Necron Lord or a Necron Overlord?

Lord. Since I said Lord and not Overlord...

Actually, rigeld:

rigeld2 wrote:
If I kill a Necron Overlord T2 shooting and it stands back up, assault it and kill it with T2 assault, it stands up, assaults me in T2 assault, it dies and gets back up, I kill it with T3 shooting, how many Victory points have I earned at the end of the battle?

I'm sure it was an honest mistake.