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.

A little confused on this.

Say I start with 5 Scarab bases in the Retribution Phalanx formation (Start Collecting! Necrons) box and have a Canoptek Spyder. The Spyder adds one base to the Scarabs making them six bases total.

During my opponents turn, they managed to completely destroy the Scarab unit. During my next turn, the Scarabs respawn as the Overlord is still alive.

My question, how many Scarabs return? 1 as wounds are removed seperately? 3 as that's the minimum size unit? 5 as I started with 5? 6 as I added one base?

Really confused on this.

It doesn't say, if I remember it correctly.

In every other instance where a unit is returned to the field after being destroyed, the unit is returned to the field as it existed when Deployment started. This means it Ignores any casualties it took before it was destroyed, but also Ignores any additional models added to it during the game.

It is a good precedent, and I would recommend using it to avoid shenanigans.

I've seen a few thread about this since the box released, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Hopefully this will be clarified in the Necron FAQ, but until then, I would go with what Charistoph said. This is the precedent set by similar special rules in formations like the Endless Swarm and the Skyblight Swarm. Also, be sure to talk to you opponent about it before the game starts.

It should be noted that per RAW you would get back the number of scarab bases in the unit that have been removed from the board as casualties, which would include the bases added to the unit by any spyders.

Whether or not you want to ignore the unequivocal RAW is up to you and your play group, but RAW is really clear.

Sorry, but this:

From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,

Does not say this:

col_impact wrote:
It should be noted that per RAW you would get back the number of scarab bases in the unit that have been removed from the board as casualties, which would include the bases added to the unit by any spyders.

Any more than it includes ICs in the resurrection.

It simply states the unit comes back. It makes no more recognition of added models any more than previously removed models.

Whether or not you want to ignore the unequivocal RAW is up to you and your play group, but RAW does not specify one way or the other.

 Charistoph wrote:
Sorry, but this:

From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,

Does not say this:

col_impact wrote:
It should be noted that per RAW you would get back the number of scarab bases in the unit that have been removed from the board as casualties, which would include the bases added to the unit by any spyders.

Any more than it includes ICs in the resurrection.

It simply states the unit comes back. It makes no more recognition of added models any more than previously removed models.

Whether or not you want to ignore the unequivocal RAW is up to you and your play group, but RAW does not specify one way or the other.

I think you need to start with simply reading the rules as they are.

The "From the Sands, We Rise" makes no mention of "original unit". It refers to the unit. You don't have permission to treat the unit as anything but the unit, unless you can somehow show me the word 'original' in the text of the rule. Precedent obviously does not count in discussions of RAW.

The Scarab Hive rule must be followed. The unit size of the unit of scarabs has been increased beyond the starting size. If you return less than the increased size you are disobeying the Scarab Hive rule.

Also, there are specific rules for removing models from the battlefield. They are placed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule is triggered when the unit is entirely removed from the battlefield. Simply return the models that comprise the unit to the battlefield. It's clear and unequivocal what comprises the unit from what has been placed on the side of the table in the course of the game.

So simply follow the rules you are given. Deviate from them and you are doing RAI. That is fine, but don't pretend you are doing RAW. I am not sure why you (Charistoph) so obviously resort to RAI and try to masquerade your argument as RAW. There's nothing wrong with doing RAI. I am just a stickler for people being honest about what they are in fact arguing, and you are not arguing RAW.


Whether or not any ICs attached to the unit would get returned is a grey area. It's not clear in the rules how the IC attachment rule would work in the removed from play zone. A player who wants to return an IC with the unit of scarabs would somehow need to show he has greater justification than the interpretation that says he cannot (ie the burden of proof is on the more broken interpretation in the case of a tie). It's a legitimate grey area in the rules and no clear interpretation wins out so the IC does not get to return with the unit of scarabs since that interpretation has the greater burden of proof.

col_impact wrote:
[I think you need to start with simply reading the rules as they are.

I am reading them as they are. And I will show you here how. Not that you ever actually listen.

The "From the Sands, We Rise" makes no mention of "original unit". It refers to the unit. You don't have permission to treat the unit as anything but the unit, unless you can somehow show me the word 'original' in the text of the rule. Precedent obviously does not count in discussions of RAW.

It makes zero mention of size or any potential additions or losses. This is why I have said, "It doesn't say". It doesn't state "original unit", nor did I say it did. It doesn't state anything about added models. It doesn't say anything about which temporal version of the unit we are to reference when we bring it back, period.

The Scarab Hive rule must be followed. The unit size of the unit of scarabs has been increased beyond the starting size. If you return less than the increased size you are disobeying the Scarab Hive rule.

Incorrect. The Scarab Hive can take it beyond its starting size, true, but that does not fully translate to the unit size being actually increased nor allowance to add that size to any resurrecting Special Rule.

Also, there are specific rules for removing models from the battlefield. They are placed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule is triggered when the unit is entirely removed from the battlefield. Simply return the models that comprise the unit to the battlefield. It's clear and unequivocal what comprises the unit from what has been placed on the side of the table in the course of the game.

There are many things put to the side of the table when they die, but From the Sands doesn't specify how it is constituted on the side of the table any more than the original unit. Because it doesn't say.

So simply follow the rules you are given. Deviate from them and you are doing RAI. That is fine, but don't pretend you are doing RAW. I am not sure why you (Charistoph) so obviously resort to RAI and try to masquerade your argument as RAW. There's nothing wrong with doing RAI. I am just a stickler for people being honest about what they are in fact arguing, and you are not arguing RAW.

Do you want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like a passive-aggressive attack?

I have explained my reasons, but you choose not to listen, so that is why you are never sure about why I say what I say.

Whether or not any ICs attached to the unit would get returned is a grey area. It's not clear in the rules how the IC attachment rule would work in the removed from play zone. A player who wants to return an IC with the unit of scarabs would somehow need to show he has greater justification than the interpretation that says he cannot (ie the burden of proof is on the more broken interpretation in the case of a tie). It's a legitimate grey area in the rules and no clear interpretation wins out so the IC does not get to return with the unit of scarabs since that interpretation has the greater burden of proof.

The IC wouldn't, and I think we have been over this before. When the rest of the unit does, the IC leaves that unit at the end of the Phase, whether he is also dead or not.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[I think you need to start with simply reading the rules as they are.

I am reading them as they are. And I will show you here how. Not that you ever actually listen.

The "From the Sands, We Rise" makes no mention of "original unit". It refers to the unit. You don't have permission to treat the unit as anything but the unit, unless you can somehow show me the word 'original' in the text of the rule. Precedent obviously does not count in discussions of RAW.

It makes zero mention of size or any potential additions or losses. This is why I have said, "It doesn't say". It doesn't state "original unit", nor did I say it did. It doesn't state anything about added models. It doesn't say anything about which temporal version of the unit we are to reference when we bring it back, period.

The Scarab Hive rule must be followed. The unit size of the unit of scarabs has been increased beyond the starting size. If you return less than the increased size you are disobeying the Scarab Hive rule.

Incorrect. The Scarab Hive can take it beyond its starting size, true, but that does not fully translate to the unit size being actually increased nor allowance to add that size to any resurrecting Special Rule.

Also, there are specific rules for removing models from the battlefield. They are placed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule is triggered when the unit is entirely removed from the battlefield. Simply return the models that comprise the unit to the battlefield. It's clear and unequivocal what comprises the unit from what has been placed on the side of the table in the course of the game.

There are many things put to the side of the table when they die, but From the Sands doesn't specify how it is constituted on the side of the table any more than the original unit. Because it doesn't say.

So simply follow the rules you are given. Deviate from them and you are doing RAI. That is fine, but don't pretend you are doing RAW. I am not sure why you (Charistoph) so obviously resort to RAI and try to masquerade your argument as RAW. There's nothing wrong with doing RAI. I am just a stickler for people being honest about what they are in fact arguing, and you are not arguing RAW.

Do you want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like a passive-aggressive attack?

I have explained my reasons, but you choose not to listen, so that is why you are never sure about why I say what I say.

Whether or not any ICs attached to the unit would get returned is a grey area. It's not clear in the rules how the IC attachment rule would work in the removed from play zone. A player who wants to return an IC with the unit of scarabs would somehow need to show he has greater justification than the interpretation that says he cannot (ie the burden of proof is on the more broken interpretation in the case of a tie). It's a legitimate grey area in the rules and no clear interpretation wins out so the IC does not get to return with the unit of scarabs since that interpretation has the greater burden of proof.

The IC wouldn't, and I think we have been over this before. When the rest of the unit does, the IC leaves that unit at the end of the Phase, whether he is also dead or not.

The rules make zero mention of "original" so you follow the rules as they are.

"From the Sands, We Rise" tells you to return 'the unit'. You are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules (such as 'original'). You know you are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules. Quit attempting to do so and pretending you aren't.

"The Scarab Hive" rule gives explicit permission to take the unit beyond the starting size. If you add 3 scarab bases to a unit of 9 scarabs you now have a unit of 12 scarabs. If you somehow do not really have a unit of 12 scarabs then you aren't obeying the Scarab Hive rule. When the rules tell you to return the unit to play then you simply return the unit to play. It could not be any simpler or more straightforward.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the rules here. You are trying to make up ambiguity where absolutely none exists, so you don't have to follow clearly written rules.


Feel free to advance an argument that the Retribution Phalanx should not allow the return of scarab models that have been added to scarab units via the Scarab Hive rule using some RAI line of argumentation or some "Rules are Broken" line of argumentation (with the requisite in-game testing). Quit pretending that you have a RAW argument. It's perfectly fine to adopt a RAI line of argument here. The rule is probably broken here and testing will probably back that up (although testing should still be done).

Just be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

The IC wouldn't, and I think we have been over this before. When the rest of the unit does, the IC leaves that unit at the end of the Phase, whether he is also dead or not.

Models that are removed from play do not participate in the rules of play, so the IC does not experience an end of Phase since the IC is 'removed from play'. Otherwise you are endorsing allowing models that are removed from play on the side of the table being allowed to move and shoot models on the battlefield (ie casualties can follow the rules of play). We dismiss your argument based on reductio ad absurdum (ie your rule argument causes the whole game to break).

The gray zone comes from whether or not the IC auto-detaches upon being placed in the remove from play zone (since no rules of play can be in play in that zone) or whether the IC is frozen in the state he was when he was in play (ie attached).

In the cases of a tie, or a legitimate gray area, you take the more conservative, less broken read of the rule, which in this case means the IC auto-detaches.

col_impact wrote:
The rules make zero mention of "original" so you follow the rules as they are.

Nor have I said they did. Did you pay attention to what I actually said? No, as usual.

It doesn't mention "original". It doesn't mention "maximum size". It doesn't mention "the size at the start of the Phase when it died". Which is why I said, "It doesn't say".

col_impact wrote:
"From the Sands, We Rise" tells you to return 'the unit'. You are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules (such as 'original'). You know you are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules. Quit attempting to do so and pretending you aren't.

I never did. You are adding additional specifiers to this rule.

Again, I said, "It doesn't say". As in, "It doesn't say what size of unit is returned".

col_impact wrote:
"The Scarab Hive" rule gives explicit permission to take the unit beyond the starting size. If you add 3 scarab bases to a unit of 9 scarabs you now have a unit of 12 scarabs. If you somehow do not really have a unit of 12 scarabs then you aren't obeying the Scarab Hive rule. When the rules tell you to return the unit to play then you simply return the unit to play. It could not be any simpler or more straightforward.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the rules here. You are trying to make up ambiguity where absolutely none exists, so you don't have to follow clearly written rules.

And From the Sands doesn't say to use enhanced size any more than it does to use the original size. Scarab Hive doesn't say that this can increase the size of the unit when it returns.

So, again, "IT DOESN'T SAY".

col_impact wrote:
Feel free to advance an argument that the Retribution Phalanx should not allow the return of scarab models that have been added to scarab units via the Scarab Hive rule using some RAI line of argumentation or some "Rules are Broken" line of argumentation (with the requisite in-game testing). Quit pretending that you have a RAW argument. It's perfectly fine to adopt a RAI line of argument here. The rule is probably broken here and testing will probably back that up (although testing should still be done).

Just be honest.

Just be honest. You are attributing a case I never stated. You are attributing a case that can be used, but is not 100% RAW any more than the precedents because it ignores the fact that it doesn't address which version of the unit we are to return.

col_impact wrote:
Models that are removed from play do not participate in the rules of play, so the IC does not experience an end of Phase since the IC is 'removed from play'. Otherwise you are endorsing allowing models that are removed from play on the side of the table being allowed to move and shoot models on the battlefield (ie casualties can follow the rules of play). We dismiss your argument based on reductio ad absurdum (ie your rule argument causes the whole game to break).

I thought we had been over this. You weren't able to prove this before, and you won't be able to prove this now. The IC rules do not care if the unit is deployed or not in order for this to be in effect. And only deployed units can perform the actions which you described.

So we can dismiss your argument on the basis that is ascribes a situation which are not written in the rules, but only in your assumptions.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules make zero mention of "original" so you follow the rules as they are.

Nor have I said they did. Did you pay attention to what I actually said? No, as usual.

It doesn't mention "original". It doesn't mention "maximum size". It doesn't mention "the size at the start of the Phase when it died". Which is why I said, "It doesn't say".

col_impact wrote:
"From the Sands, We Rise" tells you to return 'the unit'. You are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules (such as 'original'). You know you are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules. Quit attempting to do so and pretending you aren't.

I never did. You are adding additional specifiers to this rule.

Again, I said, "It doesn't say". As in, "It doesn't say what size of unit is returned".

col_impact wrote:
"The Scarab Hive" rule gives explicit permission to take the unit beyond the starting size. If you add 3 scarab bases to a unit of 9 scarabs you now have a unit of 12 scarabs. If you somehow do not really have a unit of 12 scarabs then you aren't obeying the Scarab Hive rule. When the rules tell you to return the unit to play then you simply return the unit to play. It could not be any simpler or more straightforward.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in the rules here. You are trying to make up ambiguity where absolutely none exists, so you don't have to follow clearly written rules.

And From the Sands doesn't say to use enhanced size any more than it does to use the original size. Scarab Hive doesn't say that this can increase the size of the unit when it returns.

So, again, "IT DOESN'T SAY".

The rules say add bases to the unit and the rules say return the unit to play. So I do that. If I don't do that then I am actively disobeying the rules. That's how the rules are written.

It is super simple what the rules are telling me to do.

In the absence of specific language then the general language of the rules apply.

The general logic of the rules cover all cases (including resurrection) unless there exists specific language indicating otherwise.

Quit going against plainly stated rules and pretending you are not.

Be honest about what you are proposing, which is a RAI argument or a Rules Are Broken argument.

You can keep stomping your foot and yelling "IT DOESN'T SAY". Yup, it doesn't say. So we apply the rules as they are written and the rules cover all cases. Add bases to the unit. Put models on the side of the table that are casualties. Return the unit to play.

Nothing more to discuss here except you won't admit to not having a RAW argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Models that are removed from play do not participate in the rules of play, so the IC does not experience an end of Phase since the IC is 'removed from play'. Otherwise you are endorsing allowing models that are removed from play on the side of the table being allowed to move and shoot models on the battlefield (ie casualties can follow the rules of play). We dismiss your argument based on reductio ad absurdum (ie your rule argument causes the whole game to break).

I thought we had been over this. You weren't able to prove this before, and you won't be able to prove this now. The IC rules do not care if the unit is deployed or not in order for this to be in effect. And only deployed units can perform the actions which you described.

So we can dismiss your argument on the basis that is ascribes a situation which are not written in the rules, but only in your assumptions.

Models/units in the "removed from play as casualties" zone are not in the "reserves" zone or are you saying I can bring my deceased IC in next turn from ongoing reserves?

In fact, before saying anything further on this subject you are required to clarify the full scope of what models can and cannot do (and why) in each of these zones.

1) Reserves
2) Battlefield
3) Removed from play as casualties
4) Ongoing reserves

In relation to the zones, can the models shoot, move, participate in the psychic phase?

Your argument will topple the moment you actually go about fleshing out in detail what models can and cannot do in each zone (ie upon full examination your argument is absurd)

Also consider this.

You have an IC attached to a unit in reserves that gets to come onto the battlefield on turn 3. Can I as a player detach the IC from the unit on turn 2 while in the Reserves zone? The answer to that question (and the reason for that answer) proves that you cannot detach an IC in the removed from play as a casualty zone.

col_impact wrote:
The rules say add bases to the unit and the rules say return the unit to play. So I do that. If I don't do that then I am actively disobeying the rules. That's how the rules are written.

So then, if the unit was 4 models when it died, but started with 5, lost 3 earlier and then gained two, we should just restore it with 4 models because that was the unit when it died. Do you understand this concept?

col_impact wrote:
In the absence of specific language then the general language of the rules apply.

A general supposition for gameplay, but not a requirement.

col_impact wrote:
The general logic of the rules cover all cases (including resurrection) unless there exists specific language indicating otherwise.

Quit going against plainly stated rules and pretending you are not.

But the Hive rule does not address affecting other rules, so it wouldn't.

col_impact wrote:
Be honest about what you are proposing, which is a RAI argument or a Rules Are Broken argument.

I was being honest, or did you actually miss that part by not listening again? Or do you want me to call you a liar again.

col_impact wrote:
You can keep stomping your foot and yelling "IT DOESN'T SAY". Yup, it doesn't say. So we apply the rules as they are written and the rules cover all cases. Add bases to the unit. Put models on the side of the table that are casualties. Return the unit to play.

Nothing more to discuss here except you won't admit to not having a RAW argument.

So, again, where does the Hive state it affects the unit for resurrection? It doesn't directly. You are going through a roundabout way that could be interpreted as easter egg hunting. I didn't say your method doesn't work. It does. I'm just saying that From the Sands and the Hive do not reference each other. From the Sands doesn't state which version of the unit we use to bring back whether it is the original, maximum size, or the size it was before it died.

col_impact wrote:
Models/units in the "removed from play as casualties" zone are not in the "reserves" zone or are you saying I can bring my deceased IC in next turn from ongoing reserves?

Did I say they were in Reserves? Where did I suggest that? And where is "Reserves zone" listed? How about "casualties zone"?

I said that they were not deployed. By deployed, I reference how it is used by Deployment, Reserves, Deep Strike, Infiltrate, and Outflank, and that is "placed on the table".

When a game starts, all the units are either deployed or in Reserves. As the game goes on, they are either in Reserves, Deployed or Destroyed.

col_impact wrote:
In fact, before saying anything further on this subject you are required to clarify the full scope of what models can and cannot do (and why) in each of these zones.

1) Reserves
2) Battlefield
3) Removed from play as casualties
4) Ongoing reserves

In relation to the zones, can the models shoot, move, participate in the psychic phase?

Why should I? It is your case that these limits are in place, present the argument with proper references to define each "zone".

col_impact wrote:
Also consider this.

You have an IC attached to a unit in reserves that gets to come onto the battlefield on turn 3. Can I as a player detach the IC from the unit on turn 2 while in the Reserves zone? The answer to that question (and the reason for that answer) proves that you cannot detach an IC in the removed from play as a casualty zone.

No, it doesn't.
BRB > Special Rules > Independent Character > 4th Paragraph:

An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground.

Nothing about being destroyed being a factor.

In fact, later on in that same paragraph:

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

Where does it state he has to survive in order for this to be in affect? It does not.

In addition, earlier in the section:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it.

Hard to be define coherency off the "battlefield zone" wouldn't you say?

So, either way, the IC is out.

The BRB section: "REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED" does make a good case for the full "spyder upgraded" Unit returning. ie. start game with 3, upgraded to 4 via spyder, all 4 are destroyed and those 4 return next owner's turn.

Now, because IC's always count as their own unit, even though they are joined to another unit, they would not come back via the Formation bonus, because of that same BRB rule.

Further support for IC's not counting as part of the unit when destroyed: They count as a kill point when they are removed as a casualty, even when the unit they were joined with is not completely destroyed.

Keeping in mind, I know col_impact has done a lot of debate about this subject, but I am not sure I have seen my above thought addressed. If it has, I am sure we will find out soon enough.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules say add bases to the unit and the rules say return the unit to play. So I do that. If I don't do that then I am actively disobeying the rules. That's how the rules are written.

So then, if the unit was 4 models when it died, but started with 5, lost 3 earlier and then gained two, we should just restore it with 4 models because that was the unit when it died. Do you understand this concept?

col_impact wrote:
In the absence of specific language then the general language of the rules apply.

A general supposition for gameplay, but not a requirement.

col_impact wrote:
The general logic of the rules cover all cases (including resurrection) unless there exists specific language indicating otherwise.

Quit going against plainly stated rules and pretending you are not.

But the Hive rule does not address affecting other rules, so it wouldn't.

col_impact wrote:
Be honest about what you are proposing, which is a RAI argument or a Rules Are Broken argument.

I was being honest, or did you actually miss that part by not listening again? Or do you want me to call you a liar again.

col_impact wrote:
You can keep stomping your foot and yelling "IT DOESN'T SAY". Yup, it doesn't say. So we apply the rules as they are written and the rules cover all cases. Add bases to the unit. Put models on the side of the table that are casualties. Return the unit to play.

Nothing more to discuss here except you won't admit to not having a RAW argument.

So, again, where does the Hive state it affects the unit for resurrection? It doesn't directly. You are going through a roundabout way that could be interpreted as easter egg hunting. I didn't say your method doesn't work. It does. I'm just saying that From the Sands and the Hive do not reference each other. From the Sands doesn't state which version of the unit we use to bring back whether it is the original, maximum size, or the size it was before it died.

Cool. Per your admission, my method works and you are unable to offer a counter-argument of merit.

The rules in question do not need to reference each other. They each work generally and independently and RAW works just fine.

If you follow the rules, the unit will be comprised of the models on the side of the table that were in the unit. Whatever bases were added to the unit will be in that unit on the side of the table.

The rules in 40k do not need to specifically reference each other in order to have an impact on each other. The requirement that rules must specifically reference each other is some ridiculous notion in your head.

If the rules writers wanted From the Sands, We Rise to bring back the original unit then it then they would have specified it. The unit and original unit are two very different things. Did the rules writers mess up ? Hard to imagine since scarab farm is an obvious interaction to account for. Even so, slop RAW is still RAW.

You are basically wishlisting at this point (wishing that 'original' was in the From the Sands, We Rise rule). You can't win the RAW argument on this one. To convince people not to play it the more broken way, you would be better off testing out a list with the more broken interpretation. I have. It's not broken, but it does present a few armies with a tough match (those that can't focus out the Spyders or the O Lord). People who play those armies won't like you. But that's true of WK, et. al. so power level doesn't provide compelling evidence. Maybe your tests can show otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Draco765 wrote:
The BRB section: "REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED" does make a good case for the full "spyder upgraded" Unit returning. ie. start game with 3, upgraded to 4 via spyder, all 4 are destroyed and those 4 return next owner's turn.

Now, because IC's always count as their own unit, even though they are joined to another unit, they would not come back via the Formation bonus, because of that same BRB rule.

Further support for IC's not counting as part of the unit when destroyed: They count as a kill point when they are removed as a casualty, even when the unit they were joined with is not completely destroyed.

Keeping in mind, I know col_impact has done a lot of debate about this subject, but I am not sure I have seen my above thought addressed. If it has, I am sure we will find out soon enough.

I agree with not allowing ICs to come back with the unit. I think it's a legitimate grey area and the more conservative read should win out. When a unit is removed from play, do all the rules of play cease to affect the unit? Or is the unit frozen in the state it was in as it was removed from play? Can models that are removed from play still play? If an IC can still do something like detach from a unit, why can't he shoot at something he can draw line of sight from? Even though the BRB just says it flat out with no further explication, 'removed from play' literally means you can't play with this model any more. So unless some rule specifically allows you to affect models that are removed from play, then that model is doing nothing (ie no play).

These issues are interesting to ponder, but I am not going to push for ICs coming back with the From the Sands, We Rise rule. The rules are too murky.

Someone who wants to push for ICs coming back with the unit has the burden of proof on their part.

col_impact wrote:
Cool. Per your admission, my method works and you are unable to offer a counter-argument of merit.

It works as an HYWPI, just as much as using the precedents of original unit. But I guess you missed that by not listening to everything and patting your own back. How's the shoulder?

col_impact wrote:
The rules in question do not need to reference each other. They each work generally and independently and RAW works just fine.

Not quite. Nothing in From the Sands proper references your point of view any more than it references the Hive. And that is the problem.

col_impact wrote:
If you follow the rules, the unit will be comprised of the models on the side of the table that were in the unit. Whatever bases were added to the unit will be in that unit on the side of the table.

So I can still fire all 7 Tactical Marine bolters since they are still part of the unit, even if only the Sergeant is alive? cool.

And just so you know, this is the part of reducto absdurdum you keep talking about.

Dead models are not treated as part of the unit once they are removed as a casualty, otherwise coherency would be crazy.

col_impact wrote:
The rules in 40k do not need to specifically reference each other in order to have an impact on each other. The requirement that rules must specifically reference each other is some ridiculous notion in your head.

If it is not referenced, then it cannot properly make the changes to the game needed to work the way you want.

col_impact wrote:
If the rules writers wanted From the Sands, We Rise to bring back the original unit then it then they would have specified it. The unit and original unit are two very different things. Did the rules writers mess up? Hard to imagine since scarab farm is an obvious interaction to account for. Even so, slop RAW is still RAW.

Correct. They are different things, or rather one includes the other. The problem again is, which "unit" is addressing? Original, improved, or what last died? And the answer is, "it does not say".

But hey, the Obelisk can cause Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures to take a Dangerous Terrain test, even though they would automatically pass it by naturally having Move Through Cover as part of their unit type. Did the writers mess up? Hard to imagine since Flying Monstrous Creatures have it as an obvious interaction to account for.

col_impact wrote:
You are basically wishlisting at this point (wishing that 'original' was in the From the Sands, We Rise rule). You can't win the RAW argument on this one. To convince people not to play it the more broken way, you would be better off testing out a list with the more broken interpretation. I have. It's not broken, but it does present a few armies with a tough match (those that can't focus out the Spyders or the O Lord). People who play those armies won't like you. But that's true of WK, et. al. so power level doesn't provide compelling evidence. Maybe your tests can show otherwise.

It's hard to win a RAW argument when nothing is properly "W" to discuss. And Power Level is rarely part of how I approach a RAW discussion. It does sometimes, but only from the factor of

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you follow the rules, the unit will be comprised of the models on the side of the table that were in the unit. Whatever bases were added to the unit will be in that unit on the side of the table.

So I can still fire all 7 Tactical Marine bolters since they are still part of the unit, even if only the Sergeant is alive? cool.

And just so you know, this is the part of reducto absdurdum you keep talking about.

Dead models are not treated as part of the unit once they are removed as a casualty, otherwise coherency would be crazy.

The BRB declares that dead models are removed from play. That means that they are part of the unit (scoring, resurrection, etc.) but that they take no part at all in play. Coherency, line of sight, measuring distance, movement, shooting, psychic shooting, etc. are all part of play.

In fact, if you somehow treat them as still in play then you will break the game.

From the Sands, We Rise gives specific permission to return the unit - which is now a unit on the side of the table per the rules - to play.

If there are spyders, then the Hive rule adds bases to the unit.

Plain and simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Cool. Per your admission, my method works and you are unable to offer a counter-argument of merit.

It works as an HYWPI, just as much as using the precedents of original unit. But I guess you missed that by not listening to everything and patting your own back. How's the shoulder?

You can play any way you want so it's pointless discussing HYWPI unless there are some rubrics or metrics involved (ie you are a tourney organizer and you want to implement 'fair' 40k). If you have some rubrics or metrics then please share them.

This forum discusses RAW and expects people to label their argument HYWPI if it isn't HYWPI so by not labeling your argument HYWPI, I was correctly addressing it as a RAW argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
[

col_impact wrote:
The rules in 40k do not need to specifically reference each other in order to have an impact on each other. The requirement that rules must specifically reference each other is some ridiculous notion in your head.

If it is not referenced, then it cannot properly make the changes to the game needed to work the way you want.

Both reference the unit, which is all that is required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
[

col_impact wrote:
The rules in question do not need to reference each other. They each work generally and independently and RAW works just fine.

Not quite. Nothing in From the Sands proper references your point of view any more than it references the Hive. And that is the problem.

Both reference the unit so there really is no rule problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If the rules writers wanted From the Sands, We Rise to bring back the original unit then it then they would have specified it. The unit and original unit are two very different things. Did the rules writers mess up? Hard to imagine since scarab farm is an obvious interaction to account for. Even so, slop RAW is still RAW.

Correct. They are different things, or rather one includes the other. The problem again is, which "unit" is addressing? Original, improved, or what last died? And the answer is, "it does not say".

When From the Sands, We Rise is triggered (ie when the unit is 'wiped out'), there is a unit of scarabs wholly on the side of the table. So, it's exceedingly clear that you simply bring that unit back to play. If you don't simply do just that then you are actually breaking rules.

col_impact wrote:
The BRB declares that dead models are removed from play. That means that they are part of the unit (scoring, resurrection, etc.) but that they take no part at all in play. Coherency, line of sight, measuring distance, movement, shooting, psychic shooting, etc. are all part of play.

Care to provide a quote or at least a proper reference on that?

My point was more to demonstrate that once removed as a casualty, they cannot be treated as part of the unit. If not, then many many issues will arise if they weren't. Nothing states they retain unit connections once all the models are removed, just that the unit is destroyed.

So, from this, we can look at the the unit being returned to how it was right before it was killed. The Hive's numbers may or may not be contributing to this number.

I don't necessarily agree with this as a workable version, either, since it doesn't specify the unit as it last existed any more than original or maximum sized unit, though, but just presenting it as another method of a person may want to run it.

col_impact wrote:
You can play any way you want so it's pointless discussing HYWPI unless there are some rubrics or metrics involved (ie you are a tourney organizer and you want to implement 'fair' 40k). If you have some rubrics or metrics then please share them.

This forum discusses RAW and expects people to label their argument HYWPI if it isn't HYWPI so by not labeling your argument HYWPI, I was correctly addressing it as a RAW argument.

Back to not being able to address a post consistently and having to piecemeal it again, I see.

Keep in mind, I was calling YOUR assessment as HYWPI. And HYWPI is perfectly fine when the rules are insufficiently detailed as I had stated. In fact, by stating, "it doesn't say" and by using words like "in every other instance" and "precedent" I am defining it as such.

Not that you bother to listen.

col_impact wrote:
Both reference the unit, which is all that is required.

Not really. Because there are many compositions of the unit over the course of the game that need to be identified as to which is being used.

col_impact wrote:
When From the Sands, We Rise is triggered (ie when the unit is 'wiped out'), there is a unit of scarabs wholly on the side of the table. So, it's exceedingly clear that you simply bring that unit back to play. If you don't simply do just that then you are actually breaking rules.

Incorrect as I pointed above. The models are on the side of the table, the unit is gone, completely destroyed, also known as ceased to exists. From the Sands does not state, "all the models that were part of the unit return", just the unit.

So, again, it doesn't say which version of the unit is restored.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can play any way you want so it's pointless discussing HYWPI unless there are some rubrics or metrics involved (ie you are a tourney organizer and you want to implement 'fair' 40k). If you have some rubrics or metrics then please share them.

This forum discusses RAW and expects people to label their argument HYWPI if it isn't HYWPI so by not labeling your argument HYWPI, I was correctly addressing it as a RAW argument.

Back to not being able to address a post consistently and having to piecemeal it again, I see.

Keep in mind, I was calling YOUR assessment as HYWPI. And HYWPI is perfectly fine when the rules are insufficiently detailed as I had stated. In fact, by stating, "it doesn't say" and by using words like "in every other instance" and "precedent" I am defining it as such.

Not that you bother to listen.

My assessment is RAW. It follows directly from the rules that we have and breaks no rules. A computer would have no trouble following the instructions given. It's that simple.

The popularity of the RAW interpretation is another issue altogether.

col_impact wrote:
My assessment is RAW. It follows directly from the rules that we have and breaks no rules. A computer would have no trouble following the instructions given. It's that simple.

The popularity of the RAW interpretation is another issue altogether.

I have demonstrated that it is as much RAW as any other method for HWWPI.

Query, wouldn't the unit be removed when the last base is killed? Meaning that at the time of unit death, there is only 1 base in the unit?

Col - when the unit is destroyed, it somehow isnt destroyed, but sits in a "removed from play" zone, but is still otherwise a "unit"?

Do you have a page ref for that?

Does all shooting in one phase happen simultaneously?

The arguments are very interesting.

Please make sure to stay polite, everyone!

 Happyjew wrote:
Query, wouldn't the unit be removed when the last base is killed? Meaning that at the time of unit death, there is only 1 base in the unit?

If there is one base in play then the unit is not 'wiped out'. Once the unit has zero bases in play then the unit is wiped out. From the Sands, We Rise can then trigger and return the unit to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - when the unit is destroyed, it somehow isnt destroyed, but sits in a "removed from play" zone, but is still otherwise a "unit"?

Do you have a page ref for that?

Here's the rule.



Once all the models in a unit are removed as casualties and placed on the side of the table the unit will be designated 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or some such.

Resurrection USR can then trigger to return the unit to play.

Happyjew wrote:Query, wouldn't the unit be removed when the last base is killed? Meaning that at the time of unit death, there is only 1 base in the unit?

Not necessarily. If the unit is Swept for example.

Kilkrazy wrote:Does all shooting in one phase happen simultaneously?

No, just for each Weapon Group. Even in 6th, it was only for the unit, not all the shooting.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Col - when the unit is destroyed, it somehow isnt destroyed, but sits in a "removed from play" zone, but is still otherwise a "unit"?

Do you have a page ref for that?

Here's the rule.

Spoiler:

REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side.
When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been
‘completely destroyed’.

Once all the models in a unit are removed as casualties and placed on the side of the table the unit will be designated 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or some such.

Resurrection USR can then trigger to return the unit to play.

So, no, you don't have a page reference for the question. Nowhere in that quote does it state that the unit is removed from the table to sit in a "removed from play" zone or any zone. The quote you provided only states that the unit is 'completely destroyed'. It doesn't state that the unit identity is retained after all its models have been removed any more than you consider those removed models as part of the unit.

Col - where is the page reference stating that a unit that is completely destroyed it is still somehow a "unit" identity of models, and not just a bunch of models placed on the side?

That is the issue with your concept - as soon as "the unit" is destroyed, "the unit" as it was on the table cannot exist. In fact the only entry for the unit, any longer, will be on the army list.

let us break down the rule:

"REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED"
- Page 468 electronic, pg 13 Dark Vengeance rule book. I do not have the hard cover so I do not know the page for that one, but it is under CORE RULES.

"Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side."

- Here is the line that does say you set the Models to the side when they are removed as a casualty. They call the zone "one side".

"When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’."

- When the 'one side' contains all of the models from the unit that once was on the field, the unit is now 'completely destroyed'. That is now "The unit" that the Formation rule looks at to return to the field.

The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist

Huh? You are being silly. Where in the rules does it say that the unit no longer exists? You are bringing ontological logic into a game. Very, very silly.

The unit is simply designated as 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or 'removed from play' if it's wholly on the side of the table but a resurrection rule can access the 'one side [zone]' and remove the designation of 'completely destroyed' and restore the unit to play.

These designations are all just game designations.

In fact, 'From the Sands, We Rise' triggers after a unit is 'wiped out' so there is most assuredly still a game concept of a unit in the 'one side [zone]'. To be precise, there is a unit of scarabs designated 'wiped out' in the 'one side [zone]'.

So something that is destroyed still exists? Page ref please.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So something that is destroyed still exists? Page ref please.

The unit is placed to 'one side' and designated 'completely destroyed' and treated as 'removed from play'. It's simply a game designation and functional distinction (ie 'removed from play'). The models actually still exist and have not gone through the shredder or otherwise incenerated. The designation can be removed by a separate game rule designed to return units back to play (ie 'From the Sands, We Rise').

I think you need to step back and consider we are talking about a game here and not real world physics. Page ref please for 40k adhering to real world physics. I will adhere to 40k game logic and rules. Thanks.

col_impact wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist

Huh? You are being silly. Where in the rules does it say that the unit no longer exists?

The unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or 'removed from play' but a resurrection rule can access the 'one side [zone]' to restore the unit to play.

In fact, 'From the Sands, We Rise' triggers after a unit is 'wiped out' so there is most assuredly still a concept of a unit in the 'one side [zone]'

Spoiler:

From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn.

What does "completely destroyed" mean then?

It does not say "return from the one sides zone", because the unit was not ever put in the "one sides zone", just its models. As noted, models removed as casualties cannot be considered part of the unit in order for the rest of the game to work. If they are no longer part of the unit when they go there, then they won't be part of the unit when it is brought back, as we have no instructions to reunite those models with the unit.