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.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
No just that Ever Living returning a model from the dead breaks none of the prohibitions of the Sweeping Advance rule.

Returning from the dead isn't rescuing the unit from the sweeping advance. The unit is still removed as casualties by the advance and the combat (battle if you will) is over.

You've chosen to ignore the caveat of "at this stage" and what is bizarre is the ongoing insistence that "at this stage" means "rest of the game" rather than "at this particular point in time" which is what "at this stage" means.

"Are you going to the concert Bob?"
"Not at this stage Ken"

Doesn't mean that Bob is absolutely not going to the concert, there is nothing absolute about "at this stage" beyond what is happening now.

At this stage (point) nothing can save them. Another point (stage)? Sure! As long as they have a rule allowing it - one which, you know, specifies it can come back from SA.
At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

So basically, after the first SA in a game, it is impossible to use any ability that revives a model because "at this stage" clearly lasts until the end of the game?

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

No it doesn't it means "at this stage" it makes no reference to any other stage it has no qualifier for changing or reference to the future.

The unit has been swept and at this stage nothing can prevent that , but only at this stage, it in no way precludes something happening at some other stage, like for example the end of the phase when you make your EL roll.

Gravmyr wrote:
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?

Why has no one compared 5th and 6th edition BRBs? Necrons are from 5th ed era.

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

So basically, after the first SA in a game, it is impossible to use any ability that revives a model because "at this stage" clearly lasts until the end of the game?

For THAT unit, yes. Or are you ignoring context as we'll as the other rules you've ignored / made up?

For the rest of the battle, the unit cannot take further part in it. Why do you ignore this? Or are you still making the absurd claim that the EL model is a new unit?

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

No it doesn't it means "at this stage" it makes no reference to any other stage it has no qualifier for changing or reference to the future.

The unit has been swept and at this stage nothing can prevent that , but only at this stage, it in no way precludes something happening at some other stage, like for example the end of the phase when you make your EL roll.

Pray, how do you know this stage is over?
At this stage, I'm not going to the concert.
If I end up going to the concert, obviously something changed, yes? Cite permission to "move on" to another stage in the rules. EL doesn't allow that as SA has said no special rule can save or rescue the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At this stage isn't a specific point in time but a marker meaning "from now until something changes".

So basically, after the first SA in a game, it is impossible to use any ability that revives a model because "at this stage" clearly lasts until the end of the game?

For the unit that was destroyed, yes. Unless you're trying to straw-man me and I'm just not following.

Given sigvatrs past posts on this topic, straw-manning seems likely. They've failed with any rules quotes since being proven wrong about 4 pages ago.

I would also like to point out that grammatically, they emphasize on the "battle is over" part:

Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over

The semi-colon is relatively important in describing the phrase that comes before it (and one could say, what comes after it is more important)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
It's been a long time since any RAW was mentioned in this discussion.

Also if we wanted to go into fluff or hywpi, then consider the first part of the paragraph:

"We assume(...) is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart, or otherwise sent packing(...): its members are left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best, fleeing and hiding."

So yes, i would completely agree that a Necron with EL is alive and well: he's got chains on his hand and is now fully in custody. If you would insist he is able to fight, i'd even say he is: I'll control him

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

/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.

If repeating something long enough caused others to give up and made you feel like a winner then congratulations to you, it worked again.

I don't understand the objection?
Have you reported anything you feel I'm being rude about?
Have I done anything untoward?

Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Naw wrote:
Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

It's not simply repetition. I've cited my sources and explained my reasoning. And, as to the situation you quoted me during, asking a leading question is absolutely a valid form of arguing.

I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

Can anyone give a GW definition of battle?
How about a GW definition of save?
How about a GW definition of stages?

There is no way we can continue in an intelligent way until those key terms are defined in game. If we can't actually use outside experience/logic then we can't use the language that is based off of it. There is no way to continue till we can at least start with a common base.

Comparing EL to ATSKNF is what convinces me of a particular RAW.

Sweeping Advance: "Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage: for them the battle is over."

ATSKNF: "If a unit containing one or more models with this special rule is caught by a SA, they are not destroyed, but remain locked...."

Note that ATSKNF specifies in its own entry that it works against SA, which is exactly what SA demands for there to be an exception.

Ever-Living: "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a RP counter to its unit. Instead, place an EL counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a RP counter."

Note that EL does not specify that it works against SA, therefore not fulfilling the requirements to be "rescued."

Fluffily, it works much better this way than any other way. As the Bloodletters Sweep away the Necrons, they stamp their cloven hooves and sharp talons into the metal bones of the machine-men, grinding out any last sparks of electric life. A Herald even captures the head of the Necron Overlord in his Sweeping Advance, preventing it from rising again.

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

It does not matter as those models cannot be saved, e.g. brought back by any special rule. Their stage is that they have been removed from play (as casualties).

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

It does not matter as those models cannot be saved, e.g. brought back by any special rule. Their stage is that they have been removed from play (as casualties).

I underlined where you agreed with me.
Until another stage, they cannot be brought back by any special rule.

Naw wrote:
Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

It's a usual mean when you run out of arguments and just want to debate it for the argument's sake not for the topic at hand. Both sides have stated their respective arguments and won't move a single inch towards the other's stance - and some like to participate in circle discussions. In real life, people sometimes just want to hear themselves talking.

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
I would like to point out that "at this stage" can also apply to the stage of the unit/models in question, e.g. them being swept.

Yes! Absolutely!
Now - at what point do you move on to another stage? I'm sure you have a rule saying that you do, right?

It does not matter as those models cannot be saved, e.g. brought back by any special rule. Their stage is that they have been removed from play (as casualties).

Precisely. There's only two possibilities to understand the end of the SA rule (the "saving part"):

a) It ends after SA ends, which means that anything that happens after SA is no longer subject to what SA said. EL is valid.

b) It does not end when SA ends. After the first SA happens, the "model cannot be saved" rule is valid for the entire rest of the game, meaning no model may ever come back for any reason until the end of the game. EL is therefore disallowed.

It's up to you which one you choose. It's also clear which one makes sense.

Hint: the former.

The key to understand the rule is to understand the "saving" part. The question is whether EL saves a unit / model from being swept. The correct answer is: no. Any model, even those with EL, get swept. No chance to be saved from it, they get swept. End of the story. EL happens after SA and that is precisely why the rules do not conflict. Any discussion about whether EL saved the unit in a broader context, the way regi and nosferatu argue it, is their personal interpretation of the word and, to be precise, HT(Y)WPI. If we really have an exact RAW-look at it and stick to the SA rules, then it's clear that "save" can only be used in context of the rule itself and if we do stay in this boundary, meaning the rule's actual written definition, then save only refers to being saved from being removed as a casualty. As this is not what actually happens, it's clear that you may of course use EL after having been swept in melee, given you can place the model somewhere in 3''.

Got through about 3 pafes of this, and every argument against EL after a sweeping advance is based on a faulty premise.

Ever Living and RP are repeatedly referred to as Saves. They are not Saves.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Naw wrote:
Apologies, it came out harsher than I meant. It is by no means a valid way of arguing, though.

It's a usual mean when you run out of arguments and just want to debate it for the argument's sake not for the topic at hand. Both sides have stated their respective arguments and won't move a single inch towards the other's stance - and some like to participate in circle discussions. In real life, people sometimes just want to hear themselves talking.

That's pretty insulting. I have not run out of arguments.

Precisely. There's only two possibilities to understand the end of the SA rule (the "saving part"):

a) It ends after SA ends, which means that anything that happens after SA is no longer subject to what SA said. EL is valid.

b) It does not end when SA ends. After the first SA happens, the "model cannot be saved" rule is valid for the entire rest of the game, meaning no model may ever come back for any reason until the end of the game. EL is therefore disallowed.

No, this is a straw man, and an incorrect quote - again. Please try to correctly quote rules.
The *unit* cannot be saved. The unit that was swept. Not any other unit - just that one.

It's up to you which one you choose. It's also clear which one makes sense.

Hint: the former.

I can be inflammatory too!
<tag>There's two possibilities:

1) It ends after SA ends, which means that EL is valid. This is the one that only Necron players and people who like to disagree because they're contrary pick.
2) For that unit, the battle is over.

It's up to you which one you choose. It's also clear which one is the actual rules and which is just Necron players pretending they're cool.</tag>

Hint: Everything between the tags was sarcasm. Asking questions to get someone to think down a specific track - even if you know the answer already - is a perfectly valid method to have a discussion with, and in fact is a good way to teach as well. Accusations of trolling, accusations of stubborness and refusal to listen, accusations of enjoying talking in circles, however, are not good debate practice.

The key to understand the rule is to understand the "saving" part. The question is whether EL saves a unit / model from being swept. The correct answer is: no. Any model, even those with EL, get swept. No chance to be saved from it, they get swept. End of the story. EL happens after SA and that is precisely why the rules do not conflict. Any discussion about whether EL saved the unit in a broader context, the way regi and nosferatu argue it, is their personal interpretation of the word and, to be precise, HT(Y)WPI. If we really have an exact RAW-look at it and stick to the SA rules, then it's clear that "save" can only be used in context of the rule itself and if we do stay in this boundary, meaning the rule's actual written definition, then save only refers to being saved from being removed as a casualty. As this is not what actually happens, it's clear that you may of course use EL after having been swept in melee, given you can place the model somewhere in 3''.

Since you edited...
The underlined is incorrect. If a unit is removed from the board, and then is placed back on the board, has it been saved? Simple question. I'll repeat it until it's answered.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Ever Living and RP are repeatedly referred to as Saves. They are not Saves.

Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Asking questions to get someone to think down a specific track - even if you know the answer already - is a perfectly valid method to have a discussion with, and in fact is a good way to teach as well. Accusations of trolling, accusations of stubborness and refusal to listen, accusations of enjoying talking in circles, however, are not good debate practice.

It's a useful mean if you're interested in letting someone share your knowledge without directly confronting him. If only used to mock others or demonstrate perceived superiority, especially after having been asked to lay it off, however, is nothing but rude behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

If a unit is removed from the board, and then is placed back on the board, has it been saved? Simple question. I'll repeat it until it's answered.

Has already been answered in the exact same post, actually just a few lines below.

/e: Actually, it's the next line -__________-

 Sigvatr wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Asking questions to get someone to think down a specific track - even if you know the answer already - is a perfectly valid method to have a discussion with, and in fact is a good way to teach as well. Accusations of trolling, accusations of stubborness and refusal to listen, accusations of enjoying talking in circles, however, are not good debate practice.

It's a useful mean if you're interested in letting someone share your knowledge without directly confronting him. If only used to mock others or demonstrate perceived superiority, especially after having been asked to lay it off, however, is nothing but rude behavior.

I'm not directly confronting you. I'm not mocking you. I'm not attempting to demonstrate any kind of superiority.
I never have. Your initial reaction to my questions was an (unfair) accusation of trolling.

It's been a misunderstanding then, thanks for clearing it up.

I'd have simply appreciated you stopping to do so after having been asked to by myself. Everything until that point wasn't bad, but continuing to do so after I asked you to stop doing so was just rude.

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

The big difference is the understanding of "save".

a) "save" only refers to the SA rule and its mention there -> this means that anything that happens after SA is no longer affected by SA and its sub-clauses

b) "save" is your own definition of everything which means that you don't completely lose a unit for the rest of the game

Narrow, rule-fixed definition vs. broad, common speech definition.

Doesn't the codex say that in order to take a RP roll at least one member of the unit must be alive? I don't see any such clause for EL. Therefore, I say that if a squad of warriors joined by Imotekh gets nailed by a SA, then the squad dies, but Imotekh (provided he makes his roll) would survive and be placed back in combat. Seems pretty straightforward to me. RP is treated as a separate rule to EL. While I understand that this goes against what the BRB says, it is a special rule to the Necrons and I'm told that trumps the book and is treated as a special case. I feel it was written as a way to make your lords harder to kill because they (according to fluff) were built much better than cruddy warriors.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

Assume I shoot a squad of Warriors (with attached Cryptek) and kill the whole unit. The Cryptek passes his EL roll (obviously he gets one in this case). Is the Cryptek scoring? Why or why not? Can the Cryptek be targeted by a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge special rule? Why or why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
Doesn't the codex say that in order to take a RP roll at least one member of the unit must be alive? I don't see any such clause for EL. Therefore, I say that if a squad of warriors joined by Imotekh gets nailed by a SA, then the squad dies, but Imotekh (provided he makes his roll) would survive and be placed back in combat. Seems pretty straightforward to me. RP is treated as a separate rule to EL. While I understand that this goes against what the BRB says, it is a special rule to the Necrons and I'm told that trumps the book and is treated as a special case. I feel it was written as a way to make your lords harder to kill because they (according to fluff) were built much better than cruddy warriors.

Codex trumps BRB when there is a conflict. There is no conflict between the two. If EL said it worked against SA, there would be a conflict, and EL would win.

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Incorrect. RP is for models. EL is for different models. Units contain models. When a unit is destroyed (as in SA) all models in that unit are destroyed.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

He's the same unit he already was, yes?

If you're technically dead, but a doctor brings you back to life, have you been saved?

 Happyjew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

Assume I shoot a squad of Warriors (with attached Cryptek) and kill the whole unit. The Cryptek passes his EL roll (obviously he gets one in this case). Is the Cryptek scoring? Why or why not? Can the Cryptek be targeted by a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge special rule? Why or why not?

Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct. No one has asserted they are a Save.
EL does, however, save the unit.

Nope...where to start? EL only applies to individual Special Characters and Characters. RP is for units.

Ever-Living does not in any way save the character. He just died from a Sweeping Advance.
At the very the end of the assault phase, you roll for the Ever-Living counter.

He comes back to life.

Assume I shoot a squad of Warriors (with attached Cryptek) and kill the whole unit. The Cryptek passes his EL roll (obviously he gets one in this case). Is the Cryptek scoring? Why or why not? Can the Cryptek be targeted by a Ghost Ark's Repair Barge special rule? Why or why not?

Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

If I kill the Cryptek later, do I get 1 or 2 VPs (assumiong PtA)? Would I get a Pain Token for killing the Warriro unit?

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's been a misunderstanding then, thanks for clearing it up.

I'd appreciate, but don't expect, an apology for your accusations.

I'd have simply appreciated you stopping to do so after having been asked to by myself. Everything until that point wasn't bad, but continuing to do so after I asked you to stop doing so was just rude.

It was (and is) the easiest way to prove my point.
And in actuality, you asked me to "stop the trolling" in your own words, which I wasn't doing.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/591662.page#6764635
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/591662.page#6764768

And after you accused me of trolling, I did find a way to put my argument forward without asking questions. I've been nothing but polite to you this entire conversation and have received scorn, mocking, and accusations of trolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Nope, the Cryptek would no longer be part of the scoring unit (which was just destroyed), and is not a scoring unit on his own.

This is wholly incorrect.
He has no permission to create a new unit - he's a member of the same unit he already was.