Jump to content

Necrons - Kill by Sweeping Advance?


igotsmeakabob!!

Recommended Posts

Dude, it's easy. Just point out where in the Necron codex it says debris Necrons are not part of the unit ("just more battlefield debris doesn't do this) and you are good. If you can't then they clearly suffer the same fate as the unit they are still part of.

 

RoV

This is where this argument has settled twice now, tho gentlemanloser wouldn't know as I guess he chose not to read through the old arguments as recommended?

 

Bottom line is that WBB would need to specifically state that it disregards Sweeping Advance, per the writing of the Sweeping Advance rule. WBB does not do this, so all of the models are removed by Sweep, whether they are downed or not.

 

I do agree that I hope a codex update solves it, but who knows when that will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

further to this, what we are now arguing is whether SA affects necrons at all.. if necrons werent meant to morale things like this GW would have made them fealess, even in an older edition..

 

Sort of off-topic, but I was surprised to learn they weren't Fearless when I first confronted them. I think removing WBB entirely and giving each Necron unit FNP and Fearless would make all of this much clearer and balanced the same way (as Fearless wounds would eat them instead of Sweep). Why would these immortal drone-machine-things run anyway? I'm curious to see what direction they go with the rumored update.

 

Actually WBB works better than FNP and Stubborn is a much better rule than Fearless if you aren't a CC oriented army. I'm not going to go into that again, but if you can pull off a multiple unit CC with several Fearless units and a "patsy", do it. It is like adding multiple squads to your side for that assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anti-WBB position depends on five things:

1) Use of ATSKNF as the example for how SA can be avoided.

2) Definition of the word "model"

3) Definition of the word "unit"

4) Definition of the word "casualty"

5) Interactions of the above to produce the denial of WBB vs. SA in 5th Ed just like it was in 4th Ed.

 

i cant beleive your still arguing this..

all of the points, model, unit and casualty are fully explained in the rulebook.. and these are rulebook definitions not dictionary definitions.. ATSKNF has nothing to do with this argument as necrons dont have it.

 

RAW is clear, the onus is on you to show how necrons DONT get wiped out, not trying to find silly areas like this to try and undermine our arguments..

if you dont know the definitions of the middle 3 then you really shouldnt be arguing rules should you?

 

Then why did you guys bring ATSKNF up and argue for it as an example for so many posts?

 

Because there is no RAW in support of this anti-WBB position in 5th Ed. Period.

 

I do understand them. I also understand how the anti-WBB position twists the definitions to arrive at their conclusion, it was trivially obvious within minutes of reading it through for the first time. What is amusing is that even misusing an index entry as a glossary reference, the two index entries by their wording specifically rule out the false definition of "casualty" in use.

 

The five issues are:

1) ATSKNF used to interpret the BRB and a codex other than C:SM

2) Definition of “unit”

3) Definition of “model”

4) Definition of “casualty”

5) The interrelation of the above three

 

For 1), this is trivial since codex generally does not interpret codex or dictate how another codex interacts with the BRB. The fact that the ATSKNF interacts with more than one rules section in the BRB, including SA, means the simplest interpretation is that each rules section is mentioned to specify how ATSKNF interacts with that rules section in the BRB. To overcome these two issues requires something specific in writing from GW, not opinions on how ATSKNF is an “example”.

 

The next four issues are related because they depend on how words are defined. First, so technical terms to be understood.

 

Glossaries are lists with terms that have peculiar definitions or meanings in the context of the area of knowledge being discussed. If there is no glossary, then the definition is considered to be the standard dictionary definition.

 

An index is an alphabetical list of words and topics with the page numbers they are mentioned on or discussed in a text. They are generally placed at the end of a text. While an index might lead to a page with a special definition on it (for example, the index entry for “unit” does so when it refers to page 3), this is not a necessary or sufficient condition to consider any appearance of any word to be a definition.

 

While there is no glossary in the BRB, models and units are defined on page 3, in the section with measuring distances and unit types. The relevant sentences are:

“Each model is an individual playing piece with its own capabilities.”

 

“In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together in units.”

 

“A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model,... In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'. The different types of units are detailed overleaf.”

 

Which means that units are simply a way to describe a group of models that must work together, not different categories to be treated separately for any purposes. When it says “unit” in SA it means the models in the unit as per the RAW definitions of units and models. My point that you cannot remove a unit without touching any models fits with the RAW definitions and kills the idea that “unit” and “model” are totally distinct and separate terms for game purposes.

 

It has been clear for the entire discussion that the anti-WBB definition of casualty depends on using the index and in fact was directly quoted in a post above where it does read in the Index as “Casualties 24,39”. Going to pages 24 & 39 we do find casualties mentioned.

 

Page 24: (Removing Casualties) “For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound.”

“Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all the firers.”

“Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, to injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.

 

No special definition of the word “casualty” there, simply the standard dictionary use of the word as I've given it above. Now lets go on to the next index reference.

 

Page 39: (Removing Casualties) “All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat.”

 

So this index reference provides no direct definition and implies that page 24 refers to casualties from shooting and page 39 refers to casualties from close combat and not the definitive definition the anti-WBB crowd claims and requires for its case to be made. Therefore, the standard dictionary definition stands for the word “casualty”.

 

A side benefit of using the dictionary definition means that explanatory rules like the last sentence from page 24 in the BRB do not have to be redefined as “fluff”, which accepting the anti-WBB position requires and basically means crossing out those rules, which provide the game designers' intention.

 

All this means that RAW does not support this thread's claimed anti-WBB position in any way, shape or form. It doesn't even fit normal RAI(ntended), and any claims for either are actually rules as interpreted, not written or intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ algesan

 

Dude, it's easy. Just point out where in the Necron codex it says debris Necrons are not part of the unit ("just more battlefield debris doesn't do this) and you are good. If you can't then they clearly suffer the same fate as the unit they are still part of.

 

RoV

 

give it up mate, you cant argue your postion using some twisted logic based on a dictionary meaning of a word which has a contextual use in the rulebook.. even so your logic is falwed as you havent been able to prove that remove as a casualty and remove from play means the same thing.

if thats your argument then JotWW and GK force weapins shouldnt work.. your messing with set precedents.

 

in the end the above quote has to be answered without any sidestepping arguments about meaning of the words "unit" and "model".. none of your 5 points matter one little bit towards the end result

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people play and GW tend to write their rules by the following truth:

 

Models that become casualties are removed from play;

Not all models removed from play are casualties.

Algesan, you seem to have an understanding as:

Models that become casualties are removed from play;

All models that are removed from play are therefore casualties.

 

You're hung up on this pretty straightforward deductive fallacy. But I think I can explain your error; others have given up trying. I don't wish you to get offended by my persistence, as you have put a lot of time and thinking into this thread, but I firmly believe you are wrong and so I want to help.

 

Here is why.

 

 

 

 

WH40k is a game of (mostly) plastic toy soldiers. When we play it, they're not actually "merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle" as you would define a 'real life' casualty. You know, you can't actually wound a piece of plastic either. It's the term GW decided on to label part of the process of their abstract wargame simulator. Casualty is another word they borrowed to describe a part of this process. Toughness is abstract, it's not measuring how much more resilient Wraithlords are over other models when actual bricks are dropped on them.

 

So a bit of plastic loses this abstract game concept called a 'wound', it fails this abstract thing called a 'save', and it becomes a this abstract status 'a casualty', given it has no more 'wounds' to lose. We're keeping track of this in our heads right?

 

But then a non abstract concept applies - you actually pick up the plastic models and remove them from the table on which you are playing the game.

 

Now here's where the magic happens: Some rules in this wargame simulator cut right through the crap and go straight to the non-abstract concept of pick up your models and remove them from the table on which you are playing the game

 

In such cases, removing those models from play does not make them 'casualties' in the same sense that if I pick up a hammer and smash your plastic toys I have not 'wounded' them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In such cases, removing those models from play does not make them 'casualties' in the same sense that if I pick up a hammer and smash your plastic toys I have not 'wounded' them.

Was I the only one picturing Mezkh actually doing this? I see the cool, calm explanation, followed by some insane model-beating with a hammer whipped out from behind his back, spit flying from his mouth, before putting the hammer away and clearing his throat...

 

:P

 

RoV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ algesan

 

Dude, it's easy. Just point out where in the Necron codex it says debris Necrons are not part of the unit ("just more battlefield debris doesn't do this) and you are good. If you can't then they clearly suffer the same fate as the unit they are still part of.

 

RoV

 

give it up mate, you cant argue your postion using some twisted logic based on a dictionary meaning of a word which has a contextual use in the rulebook.. even so your logic is falwed as you havent been able to prove that remove as a casualty and remove from play means the same thing.

if thats your argument then JotWW and GK force weapins shouldnt work.. your messing with set precedents.

 

in the end the above quote has to be answered without any sidestepping arguments about meaning of the words "unit" and "model".. none of your 5 points matter one little bit towards the end result

 

Actually, you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of having a rational discussion because you just keep hand waving frantically. Note that when I point out that the anti-WBB position you are espousing consists of shoddy reasoning, I provide the examples. You haven't yet.

 

FYI, I'm using dictionary definitions because your made up definitions have little to no contact with reality.

 

I bolded the bottom line in your comment: 4th Edition hangover, WBB didn't work then, so you think it shouldn't work now.

 

Otherwise, actually address my discussion. Heck, just answer the question you cannot: How are you going to remove a unit without touching a model?

 

http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv123/Gardnerius/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

 

Truth, like teachers have been saying for generations, reading comprehension and sound reasoning are useful in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise, actually address my discussion. Heck, just answer the question you cannot: How are you going to remove a unit without touching a model?

 

problem is all youve done is throw stones at our arguments without making any yourself.. to answer your question can you show me where it says you cant touch a downed model.. touching is not an attack...

 

FYI, I'm using dictionary definitions because your made up definitions have little to no contact with reality.

its not my definitions its the ones made by the BRB.. real life definitions have nothing to do with abstract definitions used by a game rules set.

 

i use the BRB rules set (including defintions) it doesnt allow us to use the dictionary as a rules set unfortunately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people play and GW tend to write their rules by the following truth:

 

Models that become casualties are removed from play;

Not all models removed from play are casualties.

 

Your second line may be correct since there has been reference to at least one codex specific rule that I do not posses a copy of.

 

Do you have something other than index references that when read actually support my position? Something that defines the word "casualty" in a way other than the dictionary definition? Remember that the close combat reference specifically refers to the shooting reference as shooting casualties.

 

Algesan, you seem to have an understanding as:

Models that become casualties are removed from play;

All models that are removed from play are therefore casualties.

 

For the rules under discussion here, yes they are casualties. It may happen to be by the dictionary definition, but then we don't have to reinvent the wheel and define what the meaning of is is or any other word in common use. From RAW the explanation in the rules fits the definition of casualty.

 

You're hung up on this pretty straightforward deductive fallacy. But I think I can explain your error; others have given up trying. I don't wish you to get offended by my persistence, as you have put a lot of time and thinking into this thread, but I firmly believe you are wrong and so I want to help.

 

Here is why.

 

Excellent, I don't mind a discussion and if there is something besides the contorted logic I've seen so far, I'll be happy to be shown my error. OTOH, simply because a belief is vehemently held doesn't make it a correct one and the English language is meant to be understood in certain ways with certain rules. GW uses those ways and rules in its rulebooks.

 

True, GW could coordinate its rules methods better, but I've actually found the books to be far better written than I'd been led to believe, with far fewer anomalies. Then again I might find less problem areas because of my experience in wargaming.

 

Many of the anomalies I've encountered I'd say result from GW's business model. Most of the others appear to come from players trying to make the rules into some kind of esoteric mystical writings that only the true initiated have the proper revelation to interpret them correctly.

 

BTW, which deductive fallacy? Just asserting doesn't prove anything.

 

Here is a good way to show a deductive fallacy:

1. Models who take unsaved wounds and are reduced to zero wounds in the shooting phase are called casualties.

2. Models who take unsaved wounds and are reduced to zero wounds in the assault phase are called casualties.

3. Therefore, only models reduced to zero wounds in the shooting and assault phases by failing saves or not having a save to make are the only casualties in the rules.

 

WH40k is a game of (mostly) plastic toy soldiers. When we play it, they're not actually "merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle" as you would define a 'real life' casualty. You know, you can't actually wound a piece of plastic either. It's the term GW decided on to label part of the process of their abstract wargame simulator. Casualty is another word they borrowed to describe a part of this process. Toughness is abstract, it's not measuring how much more resilient Wraithlords are over other models when actual bricks are dropped on them.

 

Correct, the point to wargame simulations is to use representative models with relative statistics to simulate the desired conflict. If you are playing a corps level simulation and you eliminate a unit, then you obviously did not make thousands and thousands of real people into real casualties, but you did make the equivalent of thousands and thousands of simulated people into simulated casualties without worrying about the exact numbers of dead, wounded, missing, captured, etc. I've known this for a long, long time because I've been gaming since the days when all players had was metal, plastic and cardboard markers to play with.

 

You are aware that wargaming had its genesis in military staff exercises, aren't you? It allowed them to simulate conflicts and see what the simulated casualties were. They are still in use today in the modern military and I've actually participated in a number of them both a physical "model" on the field and in staff simulations where referees handed reports about the results of officer's orders.

 

So a bit of plastic loses this abstract game concept called a 'wound', it fails this abstract thing called a 'save', and it becomes a this abstract status 'a casualty', given it has no more 'wounds' to lose. We're keeping track of this in our heads right?

 

In our heads, on paper or on the map, exactly like all simulation games. Correct, that is one way for our model that is in a unit simulating a combatant to be removed as a casualty. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the RAW lists other ways to become a casualty that just that one though. Which is why the phrase "or would otherwise be removed as a casualty" appears in the Necron WBB rule, because being reduced to zero wounds is not the only way to become a casualty.

 

But then a non abstract concept applies - you actually pick up the plastic models and remove them from the table on which you are playing the game.

 

Correct in most cases. The only exception is when the model is large enough to be considered a terrain feature. It helps reduce the clutter and simplifies things that would not be militarily significant in the simulation.

 

Now here's where the magic happens: Some rules in this wargame simulator cut right through the crap and go straight to the non-abstract concept of pick up your models and remove them from the table on which you are playing the game

 

Nice magic. Although this is a regular concept in wargames, it is nothing new or special to GW or 40k and was in use for far longer than either GW or 40k has existed. Usually though, when such a "magic" shortcut happens the rules, the designers notes or both explain why. An example from an different part of the rules shows how this works:

pg 21 (When are models in Cover?) "This is intentionally generous, and it represents the fact that the warrior, unlike the model, will be actively trying to take cover..."

 

I've pointed out other examples in the sections relevant to this discussion where other explanatory rules are and all of them boil down to the dictionary definition of the word casualty. Not the contradictory one derived from the rulebook index listings. The response to these reasonable explanations in terms how the simulation works? This is why the anti-WBB position here must discard portions of the RAW to justify itself. They called these rules "fluff" and disregard them.

 

Then they go around claiming the mantle of RAW when for all practical purposes, they've just lined out the inconvenient words that overturn their position.

 

In such cases, removing those models from play does not make them 'casualties' in the same sense that if I pick up a hammer and smash your plastic toys I have not 'wounded' them.

 

The more I read that, the more silly it becomes.

 

That was a nicely patronizing post that ignorant sycophants might think is well written. I'll sum it up in a quote: "Don't teach your grandmother suck to suck eggs." If you don't understand it, do a search.

 

Otherwise, engage the points I listed, because as soon as you tried (yet again) the stupid definition trick on the word "casualty" without doing so, you show yourself unable to deal with it rationally.

 

It is really quite simple for you on this one point: show where GW has defined "casualty" to only mean shooting and close combat. You cannot do so using the entries at the index references because the second clearly refers to the first as "shooting casualties", reinforcing the position that those two entries refer to casualties from shooting and casualties from close combat. This does not imply that those are the sum total of all possible ways for a model to become a casualty (in terms of the simulation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise, actually address my discussion. Heck, just answer the question you cannot: How are you going to remove a unit without touching a model?

 

problem is all youve done is throw stones at our arguments without making any yourself.. to answer your question can you show me where it says you cant touch a downed model.. touching is not an attack...

 

FYI, I'm using dictionary definitions because your made up definitions have little to no contact with reality.

its not my definitions its the ones made by the BRB.. real life definitions have nothing to do with abstract definitions used by a game rules set.

 

i use the BRB rules set (including defintions) it doesnt allow us to use the dictionary as a rules set unfortunately

 

 

Ok, you cannot deal with my position in a rational manner or even provide a pushback.

 

I've shown repeatedly where the definitions for "unit", "model" and "casualty" in use by the anti-WBB do not fit RAW. I've given examples. All you guys can do is claim you are using RAW while dismissing any of the words in the rulebook that are inconvenient to your position as "fluff".

 

Page 2, post 27. My position is clear from the first post I made in this thread. It hasn't changed and won't the way you guys keep ducking without engaging. I do notice that ATSKNF has managed to be dropped from your tricks despite the prominence it had at the beginning of the thread, so progress is being made. I'll refrain from describing the behavior that you just qualified for in trying to put a false slur on me.

 

BTW, nothing was said about an attack. Using your definitions of "unit" and "model" that support the anti-WBB position, since models are distinct from units, if you win a sweeping advance and can remove a "unit", then I'll tell you to go ahead, but make sure you don't touch any "model". Just like the ATSKNF claims, I'm going to remove this prop to your position. When all contrivance and appeals to tradition or special knowledge are gone, then the rules as written will apply and as long as the other relevant conditions apply, units with the Necron rule will get their WBB rolls after being sweeped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long winded appeals to his special knowledge of other wargames, real-world military simulations, and beating of the same dead horse, etc, ad nauseum.

 

It is really quite simple for you on this one point: show where GW has defined "casualty" to only mean shooting and close combat. You cannot do so using the entries at the index references because the second clearly refers to the first as "shooting casualties", reinforcing the position that those two entries refer to casualties from shooting and casualties from close combat. This does not imply that those are the sum total of all possible ways for a model to become a casualty (in terms of the simulation).

We don't have to show a negative. We have shown two instances where 'casualty' is defined by the rule. You have not yet shown in the Rulebook where 'removed from game/table' is defined as equal to 'casualty'. Until then, you talking out your 'not RAW' hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.