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.

Happyjew wrote:

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.

Actually... (because this was the post he was responding to)

rigeld2 wrote:What kind of unit is a Lord who used to be a member of a Warrior unit? Is he scoring?

Underlined for emphasis.

Sorry, I thought you were still referring to the Overlord question (since he never did answer it). He just kinda claimed you were trolling since you "don't know how to calculate VPs".

This thread is a bit out of control - even going by the usual 'standards' of YMDC.

So, General In Thread Warning Time!

Rule #1 will be strictly enforced from this point forward - breaking it now will result in suspensions for all involved parties.

Thanks!

For clarity; key phrases to the rule:

"removed as casualties"

"no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage"

EL states what happens when a unit is removed as casualties. and removing as casualties =/= removing from play. Removing from play comes from weapons such as exile rays, tesseract labyrinths, jaws of the werewolf, D Weapons, ect... SA is not one of them otherwise it would have stated this.

The conflict comes down to whether or not you believe "cannot be rescued" is the same as rolling for EL. I'm, personally, of the opinion that the rule is future-proofing or bullet proofing the rule so that any special rules that might state currently or the in the future:

"if this model would be removed as a casualty... roll a D6 and on a 2+ the model survives with one wound remaining..."

such they would not resolve as there'd be no rules to deal with what happens if someone survived during a SA.

Necrons, however, do not survive SA. The effect of SA is carried out, the unit is removed as casualties and thus ends the effect of SA.

RP tokens as a result are lost and EL tokens are left behind. If your opponent was smart enough, then he consolidate over the EL tokens to prevent them from coming back. And I'm fine with that because if I lose Trazyn, for example, I still get surrogate hosts if you've consolidated over him and I don't think it makes sense that you can kill him and consolidate over him to prevent his reanimation but if you sweep him then you prevent his surrogate hosts too?

sonicaucie wrote:
EL states what happens when a unit is removed as casualties. and removing as casualties =/= removing from play. Removing from play comes from weapons such as exile rays, tesseract labyrinths, jaws of the werewolf, D Weapons, ect... SA is not one of them otherwise it would have stated this.

From the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition Main Rulebook FAQ v1.5:

Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes.

Please stop accusing each other of trolling. It violates Rule Number One, which is Be Polite. Thanks.

 Ghaz wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
EL states what happens when a unit is removed as casualties. and removing as casualties =/= removing from play. Removing from play comes from weapons such as exile rays, tesseract labyrinths, jaws of the werewolf, D Weapons, ect... SA is not one of them otherwise it would have stated this.

From the Warhammer 40,000 6th edition Main Rulebook FAQ v1.5:

Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes.

Counting as isn't the same as it being the same thing.

You can be in a challenge in combat and count as being in base contact only with the other challenger. But that doesn't mean that you're only in base contact with him otherwise it would be impossible to charge an ongoing challenge between 2 characters as you'd never be locked in combat as they only "count as being in base contact with each other". The point being that you can still be in base contact, but you don't count as being so.

In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

 Ghaz wrote:
In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

Can you show me where it says this in the rulebook?

sonicaucie wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

Can you show me where it says this in the rulebook?

It's in how they use the phrase.
Consistently throughout the rulebook, GW uses "counts as" in the same way "is" is used.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
In 40K, it is the same thing. Counting as = is.

Can you show me where it says this in the rulebook?

It's in how they use the phrase.
Consistently throughout the rulebook, GW uses "counts as" in the same way "is" is used.

Can you show me an example that isn't being used in sort of context I provided?

Generally, I've found, when the rulebook or codex uses "counts as" it's being used to provide the models with a condition that they aren't actually in or to utilise conditions that they've been given that they may or may not actually be in.

I.E: Temporal Snares, all movement counts as moving through difficult terrain. This imbues the model with all the restrictions and permissions that difficult terrain gives the model but the model is not actually in difficult terrain and thus would not get any permission to use a rule that specifically requires the model to literally be in difficult terrain. This is how I've always interpreted it atleast.

The quote you've shown, would be granting the permissions that "being removed as casualties" would give a model. However, the model is still removed from play and thus does not get an EL or RP roll since there is no model in play to use EL or RP regardless of the fact that he has been removed as a casualty.

But, if a model has an ability or rule like "this unit gains rage if a model in the unit is removed as a casualty", then he'd still get that ability as there is sufficient permission for it to be carried out.

If you can give me an example that runs contrary to this, I will concede the point.

Charging through difficult terrain with model makes the entire unit count as charging through difficult terrain.
Regrouping forces the unit to count as having moved.
Brotherhood of Psykers count as ML1. If they're not actually ML1, how do they generate warp charges?
Difficult Terrain counts as Dangerous when Deep Striking.
Units still in Reserve at the end of the game sadly count as destroyed.
An IC counts as a member of his unit for all rules purposes.

There's more.

Like I said above, it's about sufficient permissions and conflicts. EL & RP conflicts with remove from play but not the counts as casualties. The remove from play supercedes EL & RP regardless of any permissions that being removed as casualties grants it.

Charging through difficult terrain with model makes the entire unit count as charging through difficult terrain.
- There is no conflict, it is merely imbuing the rest of the unit with the condition of charging through difficult terrain when it otherwise didn't.

Regrouping forces the unit to count as having moved.
- As above, it's a restriction put on the unit.

Brotherhood of Psykers count as ML1. If they're not actually ML1, how do they generate warp charges?
- There is no conflict here either, they gain all the permissions of the "counts as" condition but they are not ML1.

Difficult Terrain counts as Dangerous when Deep Striking.
- No conflict, it's a condition placed upon the unit. They are landing in difficult terrain that counts as dangerous, but again, it's not dangerous terrain.

Units still in Reserve at the end of the game sadly count as destroyed.
- As above, counts as being destroyed and thus inherits all the benefits and problems with that condition. Even though it is not destroyed.

An IC counts as a member of his unit for all rules purposes.
- He counts as being part of his unit for all purposes but he is still his own unit.

Counts as =/= is

An IC in a unit is not part of the unit, but he counts as being part of it for all intents and purposes. A unit can charge into combat with an ongoing challenge but cannot strike blows. This is not because the characters in the challenge are only in base contact with each other, but because they count as being in base contact with each other. However, this does not negate the reality that they may be in base contact with other models.

"counting as being removed as casualties" is not the same as being removed as casualties. EL would inherit the problems from both being removed from play and as casualties and being removed from play would mean that EL can't take place. Can't takes precedence under these circumstances and thus the model is removed with no EL but "counts as being removed as a casualty" for the purposes of any other rules or sequences still in effect that would not conflict with being removed from play.

sonicaucie wrote:
An IC in a unit is not part of the unit, but he counts as being part of it for all intents and purposes.

Please, elaborate on the differences.
If he's not part of the unit, I can target him separately, yes?
If he's not part of the unit, he doesn't get buffs that are cast on the unit, correct?

In what way is he not part of the unit?
You're attempting to make an irrelevant distinction.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
An IC in a unit is not part of the unit, but he counts as being part of it for all intents and purposes.

Please, elaborate on the differences.
If he's not part of the unit, I can target him separately, yes?
If he's not part of the unit, he doesn't get buffs that are cast on the unit, correct?

In what way is he not part of the unit?
You're attempting to make an irrelevant distinction.

It's not irrelevant. There are a few rules that require the distinction between something being literally x and counting as x.

Hunters from hyperspace would require said distinction because if you treated the IC as counting as being part of the unit for all intents and purposes as "is part of the unit for all intents and purposes" then you would not be able to place a HfH counter on the IC specifically as there is no IC unit on the table.

Counting him as part of the unit, for all intents and purposes, means that the IC's unit still exists but inherits all the permissions and restrictions of him being part of the unit he has joined. This includes not being able to shoot at his unit specifically as it would break the rules of him being counted as part of that unit.

If you shoot at the IC while he is part of a unit, have you counted him as being part of that unit? No.

sonicaucie wrote:
Hunters from hyperspace would require said distinction because if you treated the IC as counting as being part of the unit for all intents and purposes as "is part of the unit for all intents and purposes" then you would not be able to place a HfH counter on the IC specifically as there is no IC unit on the table.

It's almost like HFH has a specific allowance to target an IC and without that allowance it wouldn't work.
Oh - that's exactly how it is.

Counting him as part of the unit, for all intents and purposes, means that the IC's unit still exists but inherits all the permissions and restrictions of him being part of the unit he has joined. This includes not being able to shoot at his unit specifically as it would break the rules of him being counted as part of that unit.

If you shoot at the IC while he is part of a unit, have you counted him as being part of that unit? No.

You still haven't shown a distinction. Literally any attempt to treat the IC as not a member of the larger unit is illegal, as he is part of the larger unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
Hunters from hyperspace would require said distinction because if you treated the IC as counting as being part of the unit for all intents and purposes as "is part of the unit for all intents and purposes" then you would not be able to place a HfH counter on the IC specifically as there is no IC unit on the table.

It's almost like HFH has a specific allowance to target an IC and without that allowance it wouldn't work.
Oh - that's exactly how it is.

Counting him as part of the unit, for all intents and purposes, means that the IC's unit still exists but inherits all the permissions and restrictions of him being part of the unit he has joined. This includes not being able to shoot at his unit specifically as it would break the rules of him being counted as part of that unit.

If you shoot at the IC while he is part of a unit, have you counted him as being part of that unit? No.

You still haven't shown a distinction. Literally any attempt to treat the IC as not a member of the larger unit is illegal, as he is part of the larger unit.

I'm not really sure where we're misunderstanding each other. You're saying the distinction is irrelevant, I'm saying it's not.

My original purpose was to show that "removing from play counts as removing as a casualty" is not the same as "removing from play is removing as a casualty".

Because if you're interpreting it that way, then necron characters get Ever Living against tesseract labyrinth, Jaws and any other effect that states "remove from play".

My point is that when you get a "counts as" statement that you're inheriting permissions and restrictions on top of what you had prior. Being removed as a casualty might trigger an ability or a rule that being removed from play might not. EL being an example. The difference is that remove from play is still in effect and can't supercede the casualty permission.

Even if I'm wrong on this point, I'm unsure about where you're going with this. As even if remove from play counts as remove as a casualty it does not imply that remove as a casualty counts as remove from play.

A implies B does not mean that B implies A.

So despite them counting as new units, in sigvatrs latest claim, they don't count for VPs, even though the units have been wiped out? Interesting way to prove yourself wrong, as inconsistency is a big clue...

Rescuing the unit, and for them the battle is over, are as clear as a bell. Creating a new unit? Not a single rule or FAQ allows for that.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Perhaps you can quote for me where it mentions that the placing of a token is an attempt to save the unit ? I don't see it anywhere.

I'd also be keen to see what back up you have for suggesting that the prohibition on special rules saving the unit from sweeping advance extends to special rules that do no stop the unit being removed as a casualty but being able to return after the sweeping advance has been affected because as it stands all of the requirements of the sweeping advance have been fulfilled and I don't see how that precludes reanimation.

You're obviously unaware but "mate" is a friendly form of familiar address in my country, if you'd rather I used more caustic terms I'd be more than happy to oblige.
Remember, this is about plastic spacemen, no need to unleash your unsavoury side.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So despite them counting as new units, in sigvatrs latest claim, they don't count for VPs, even though the units have been wiped out? Interesting way to prove yourself wrong, as inconsistency is a big clue...

According to your interpretation of my comment, that far derives from its actual content, anytime a character model would voluntarily leave a unit, the amount of units the army has would increase by 1. Does that sound logical to you?

I truly wonder how many pages total this argument has had over all the threads.

 Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So despite them counting as new units, in sigvatrs latest claim, they don't count for VPs, even though the units have been wiped out? Interesting way to prove yourself wrong, as inconsistency is a big clue...

According to your interpretation of my comment, that far derives from its actual content, anytime a character model would voluntarily leave a unit, the amount of units the army has would increase by 1. Does that sound logical to you?

Yes, because joining the unit decreases your unit count by one.

Fragile wrote:
I truly wonder how many pages total this argument has had over all the threads.

Meh, it's YMDC. As soon as a thread gets more than 2 pages, it usually devolves in circle argumentation, you then get two sides and both sides hate at each other back and forth. Nobody is willing to accept anything the other person says, ad hominem get thrown around, mods step in and ask people to calm down, another user starts it all again, thread gets closed.

You're best off just reading the first pages and if still in doubt, google for the rest.

...and my guess is 21.

The correct answer to the OP is that Everliving does indeed allow for resurrection after being swept because SA not interfering with the EL special rule that is triggered after SA has been resolved.

Correct answer first provided in #3.

Coming back to the topic, if the argument is that "for them the. Battle is over"' do you also mean Trazyn can never come back? Or that St Celestine can never return either?

So Trazyn should be called Trazyn the Once (If Swept) :p

On page 27 they are said to be removed as casualties. This should allow EL to occur.

 milkboy wrote:

On page 27 they are said to be removed as casualties. This should allow EL to occur.

It does indeed and, partially, for this exact reason. The unit / model gets swept and is removed from play as a casualty, nothing and no special rule can stop this. After this point, SA is done. Then, EL kicks in and allows you to place a marker and, at the end of the phase, roll for a chance to come back into play.

I lol'd at "Trazyn the Once".

I just hope the the rumored 7th edition adds clarification to SA in the same way that the rule for destroyer weapons did, so this argument can finally be put to rest.

I guess most people wish for GW to finally release a good, clear set of rules

A new edition, though, isn't a real solution. The underlying problem is that GW needs to update the rules, similar to patches for video games, as new problems usually appear way after releasing a new set of rules or even years afterwards.

So for them the battle isn't over? You've rescued the unit, despite the rules stating this is not possible unless your rule specifies it works, and your rule specifies...nope, no specification there!

Correct raw answer has been given all along, Sigvatr et al are simply ignoring written, clear as anything rules to allow el to operate.

Your wrong interpretation of the rules doesn't get "rightier" the louder you shout / the more often you repeat it. You had your argumentation laid out, it couldn't hold up, that's it.

You are under the impression that after the first SA in a 40k game appears, it and its sub-clasues are valid for the rest of the entire game - which is downright wrong. Obviously.

Just curious, nosferatu and rigeld, do you guys play it that Celestine cannot come back after a sweeping advance?