Necrons - Kill by Sweeping Advance?

[greatcrusade08]

Dammitall!!!!!! You win this round, GC08!

 

lol

 

next time gadget... next time :D

[Algesan]

heres the previous link

WBB vs sweeping advances

 

heres a quote from seattleDV8

Incorrect, Sweeping Advance effects Units not models.

BRB pg. 40 "The falling back unit is destroyed" and again " The destroyed unit is removed immeadiately"

The entire unit is removed, not just the standing ones.

The downed Necrons are still part of their parent unit as shown in the Necron FAQ.

"Necrons who fail their WBB roll are removed

unless you intend to use a Monolith portal to

teleport the unit during the current move."

If they are not part of the unit then they would be unable to be teleported through the Monolith.

Also downed models are moved with the parent unit when Falling Back with a Res Orb. as they are still part of the unit.

Sweeping Advance is one of the few rules that over ride Codex rules.

A special rule must have specific wording (like ATSKNF does) to over-ride Sweeping Advance , WWB does not have that wording.

Side note: the rule is unchanged from 4th Ed except for the example ' ...other special rule , like WWB, can rescue...'

 

1. The side note is incorrect, if we must bring 4th Ed into into it, the rule reads: "The destroyed unit(s) is immediately removed. No invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back special rule) can save the unit at this stage;..."

 

5th Ed reads: "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage,..."

 

So, the rule has changed from 4th to 5th with the addition of "Unless otherwise specified". Codex overrules BRB but Codex cannot overrule Codex, which is what bringing in ATSKNF is trying. Otherwise the silly situation will occur where "Codex A lists a Rhino at 35 points but Codex B lists it at 50 points, so you have to use Codex (whatever is beneficial to the one making the point)". Or: "I have a Codex with a psyhood only having a 24" range, so you cannot use the unlimited range psyhood in your Codex. It is irrelevant that GW has been too lazy to update for the last two editions of the game and that GW has stated that Codex rules for each army." (I've heard the second one, except for the first part of the second sentence.)

 

ATSKNF has a number of different effects, one of which applies vs. Sweeping Advance. WBB applies to any time that a Necron rule unit would be removed from the board, immediately or otherwise.

 

2. "Unit" vs "model". So, if a unit contains one model, is it a "unit" or a "model"? If it is a "unit" does this mean it doesn't have to take casualties as a "model"? Is the reverse true?

 

All casualties, from whatever cause, are "immediately removed from the table". Of course, unless another rule supersedes such a removal. Playing word games about "unit", "model" and somehow that "..., its members either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding.", doesn't mean casualties is a reach. Sure, they are chainsworded, boltered, flamered, meltaed, power weaponed, etc. into debris, but <spark---spark> here they come again.

 

The only reason the models of a Necron unit killed by Sweeping Advance could be pulled is if there is no other unit of the same type within 6" of any of the damaged Necron models at the time it could be removed. Of course, if there is a Tomb Spyder within 12" and another unit of the same type anywhere else on the map, then they can roll WBB still. If any of them fail their roll, then you could teleport them through the monolith to get another chance if the above conditions are met.

 

The only way that Sweeping Advance in 5th Ed kills Necrons dead is if they are out of range of another unit or a Tomb Spyder. The only way to justify it otherwise is to be dealing with 4th Ed hangover, where the rule says "No save or special rule" (with a specific ruling against WBB) instead of the 5th Ed's "Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule".

 

Face it, Necron gauss weaponry got seriously nerfed, but WBB now works vs Sweeping Advance as long as you have the correct units in the correct place. The joys of fast changing edition rule books and codex creep.

 

The Necrons are probably in the slot for updating in the next couple of years, maybe things will change by then.

[SeattleDV8]

1. The side note is incorrect, if we must bring 4th Ed into into it, the rule reads: "The destroyed unit(s) is immediately removed. No invulnerable save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back special rule) can save the unit at this stage;..."

 

5th Ed reads: "The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage,..."

Which was correct, The rule is for all intents unchanged from 4th ed. but that is why I stated it as a side note as we play with 5th ed. rules.

 

So, the rule has changed from 4th to 5th with the addition of "Unless otherwise specified". Codex overrules BRB but Codex cannot overrule Codex, which is what bringing in ATSKNF is trying. Otherwise the silly situation will occur where "Codex A lists a Rhino at 35 points but Codex B lists it at 50 points, so you have to use Codex (whatever is beneficial to the one making the point)". Or: "I have a Codex with a psyhood only having a 24" range, so you cannot use the unlimited range psyhood in your Codex. It is irrelevant that GW has been too lazy to update for the last two editions of the game and that GW has stated that Codex rules for each army." (I've heard the second one, except for the first part of the second sentence.)

That's a straw man argument , I pointed out that ATSKNF does 'otherwise specified' that it works against Sweeping Adavance.

ATSKNF has zero effect on WWB.

 

ATSKNF has a number of different effects, one of which applies vs. Sweeping Advance. WBB applies to any time that a Necron rule unit would be removed from the board, immediately or otherwise.

Thats is not true, WWB comes into play when a model would be removed as a casualty

SA removes the unit from play.

 

2. "Unit" vs "model". So, if a unit contains one model, is it a "unit" or a "model"? If it is a "unit" does this mean it doesn't have to take casualties as a "model"? Is the reverse true?

 

All casualties, from whatever cause, are "immediately removed from the table". Of course, unless another rule supersedes such a removal. Playing word games about "unit", "model" and somehow that "..., its members either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding.", doesn't mean casualties is a reach. Sure, they are chainsworded, boltered, flamered, meltaed, power weaponed, etc. into debris, but <spark---spark> here they come again.

Of course a single model can be a unit, so what. SA does not cause casualties, it simply removes the unit from play, never keying WWB.

All casualties are removed from play, but not every thing removed from play are casualties.

Casualties are caused by wounds.

The only reason the models of a Necron unit killed by Sweeping Advance could be pulled is if there is no other unit of the same type within 6" of any of the damaged Necron models at the time it could be removed. Of course, if there is a Tomb Spyder within 12" and another unit of the same type anywhere else on the map, then they can roll WBB still. If any of them fail their roll, then you could teleport them through the monolith to get another chance if the above conditions are met.

How ? by your logic they are not part of any unit.

Necrons can become part of a new unit but only after a successful WWB roll. At the time of the SA they are still part of their parent unit.

The only way that Sweeping Advance in 5th Ed kills Necrons dead is if they are out of range of another unit or a Tomb Spyder. The only way to justify it otherwise is to be dealing with 4th Ed hangover, where the rule says "No save or special rule" (with a specific ruling against WBB) instead of the 5th Ed's "Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule".

And where in the WWB rules is the mention of SA?

WWB is a 'special rule' without any specific mention of SA, it does not work.

 

 

Face it, Necron gauss weaponry got seriously nerfed, but WBB now works vs Sweeping Advance as long as you have the correct units in the correct place. The joys of fast changing edition rule books and codex creep.

 

The Necrons are probably in the slot for updating in the next couple of years, maybe things will change by then.

Gauss weapons work just the same, it's the vehicle damage tables that changed.

SA works just the same too, the Necron's are removed without WWB.

[thade]

Face it, Necron gauss weaponry got seriously nerfed, but WBB now works vs Sweeping Advance as long as you have the correct units in the correct place. The joys of fast changing edition rule books and codex creep.

 

I'm not sure it works this way, but that is the problem with how ambiguous it is. Honestly, RAW I see it GC08's way...but I won't play it that way. I'll allow any Necron player I confront to recover models via WBB if they didn't die to the Sweep itself, as I have been doing. It doesn't seem terribly imbalanced, and considering how the Crons are already a hard game to play (save their one tournie-worthy list), I don't see an issue with it.

[igotsmeakabob!!]

Alright.. how is it played in GW Tournaments?

[thade]

Alright, after more discussion, reading, and thinking about this, I am not satisfied with my original conclusion. (Sorry, GC08.)

 

Normally, when a model is killed in an assault, it's removed as a Casualty; pulled off of the table, no longer a factor. If the unit is then caught by a Sweeping Advance, that unit is removed. Naturally, the already dead guys are long gone.

 

Necron models, when wounded down, aren't removed from the table. They count as "debris". "Debris" is not part of the unit it once was. If that unit is then caught by a Sweeping Advance, the unit is removed...but the "debris"? Why would it be removed? Those are effectively casualties, albeit with a special rule. A special rule that says, in the next turn, they can stand back up with WBB if a like-unit is in range.

 

I think it's okay for the Crons to get WBB post Sweep. Thoughts?

[SeattleDV8]

You would be correct if Sweeping Advance targeted models.

Sadly it targets the unit.

The downed models are still part of the unit.

Monolith teleport, The last paragraph of the Power Matrix description "Any models in the unit that, although eligible to self-repair, failed their 'We'll Be Back'............".

The Necron FAQ

"Q. When do you remove Necrons that fail their

WBB roll?

A. Necrons who fail their WBB roll are removed

unless you intend to use a Monolith portal to

teleport the unit during the current move."

So either they are destroyed by SA and can teleport as they are still part of the unit

or they are uneffected by SA and you can't teleport them as they are no long part of the unit.

 

I agree it is not a over powered house rules to allow the downed ones to have a chance at WWB but it's not the rules.

Remember 'no special rule' can save them.

[Legatus]

I am not convinced that Necrons that have been killed during a combat are removed by the following sweeping advance.

 

According to the Codex Necrons (though IIRC there was an updated one and I might be using the old one) exlains on page 13 that

 

"Damaged Necrons ignore the normal coherency rules and cannot be attacked in any way - they are seen as just more battlefield debris"

 

"A Necron cannot self-repair if

"

 

"Additionally, the self-repair ability only works if the wounded Necron is within 6" of another model of the same type, though not necessarily of the same unit."

 

All of that reads to me that a Necron that is struck down by a chainsword will be able to self-repair (provided another Necron of the same type is within range), no matter what happened to the rest of the unit.

 

In the FaQ there is the following question on page 3:

 

"Q. If a Necron unit teleports through the Monolith's portal, do the unit's damaged Necrons get to re-roll their WBB rolls even if they are no longer within 6" of a Necron model of the same Type?

A. Yes, as long as they were able to roll in the first place, they get another chance."

 

That reads like a Monolith will never teleport damaged Necrons at all, it will grant them another chance to repair and only teleports them if they pass their WBB test.

 

Also, a unit of 10 Necrons that loses 6 models to regular hits and fails their morale test would be unable to regroup, unless at least one of the damaged Necrons managed to stand back up. The Necrons on the ground would not count towards the unit strength.

 

But claiming that the rules for sweeping advances state how "the enemy unit" is removed is very flimsy anyways, as you indeed never remove just individual models from the fleeing unit. The point remains that damaged Necron models are not currently viable targets for any kind of attack, and are not bound to join their former unit if another Necron unit happens to be closer.

[Mezkh]

Sweeping Advance isn't really an 'attack', it's an game mechanic that overrides anything that doesn't specifically deny it. Specify means it must mention "sweeping advance" directly.

 

Very much a case of clutching at straws to say your special rules save your models and they take further part in the game when they are subjected to a rule that says 'remove your models from the table, they take no further part in the game, and no special rules can save them unless otherwise specified'.

 

But yes this is very much a rehash of the old thread. Not covering any new ground for old-hand Necron players.

[Algesan]

Which was correct, The rule is for all intents unchanged from 4th ed. but that is why I stated it as a side note as we play with 5th ed. rules.

 

ATSKNF has zero effect on WWB.

 

Okay, you were illustrating with ATSKNF and not using as proof. No problem.

 

However, the change in the 5th Ed rules allow that it is possible to have a save to Sweeping Advance, whereas in 4th Ed there was clearly no possible way to save. It doesn't matter as to intents and purposes, RAW has changed from zero chance to a chance in certain cases.

 

ATSKNF has several effects:

1. Allows auto regroup if possible

2. Eliminates the below 50% criteria against regrouping.

3. Disallows elimination by Sweeping Advance as long as there is one Marine model left in the unit.

 

It is an artifact of ATSKNF addressing different rules sections that requires Sweeping Advance to be mentioned directly. So the specificity of mentioning Sweeping Advance directly that you are claiming is required by using ATSKNF as your illustration does not follow.

 

You are correct, ATSKNF has absolutely zero effect on WBB, including as an illustration of how a rule must be written to cover Sweeping Advance.

 

ATSKNF has a number of different effects, one of which applies vs. Sweeping Advance. WBB applies to any time that a Necron rule unit would be removed from the board, immediately or otherwise.

Thats is not true, WWB comes into play when a model would be removed as a casualty

SA removes the unit from play.

 

"Any Necron model that is reduced to 0 wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged."

 

First, let's kill this silly "unit"/"model" BS. Please explain to me, after winning a SA of a group of....say Orks how you will remove the "unit" while not touching any "model". If you cannot tell us of a way to do this then to remove a "unit", you must remove at least one "model", correct?

 

Units are composed of models and is simply the designation of a group of one or more models who must conform to certain rules for movement, shooting and assaulting. In some cases the rules apply to all the models in a unit and in other times they do not.

 

So all there is left is the issue of what is a casualty.

 

<snip> "..., its members either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding.", doesn't mean casualties is a reach. Sure, they are chainsworded, boltered, flamered, meltaed, power weaponed, etc. into debris, but <spark---spark> here they come again.

Of course a single model can be a unit, so what. SA does not cause casualties, it simply removes the unit from play, never keying WWB.

All casualties are removed from play, but not every thing removed from play are casualties.

Casualties are caused by wounds.

 

Let's see, the options given under Sweeping Advance for what happened to the losers of a Sweeping Advance are:

1. Dead

2. Wounded

3. Captured

4. Fleeing and Hiding

 

Which one of these do you consider not casualties?

 

I see where you are trying to pull this casualty thing from, but this is not the result of a shooting or close combat attack where "casualty" = "caused by wounds", this is the result of a Sweeping Advance which as I quoted previously, states a number of reasons why the models in a unit are removed as casualties.

 

How about we reverse this question: When is any other time a model (or unit :D ) is removed for any reason other than being a casualty? Is there some other time besides SA that we need to make this distinction?

 

Pulling out the next most handy codex, I see that Witch Hunter Arco-Flagellants can be removed as casualties (yes, the magic word is used, not once, but twice) and the word "wound" appears nowhere in the rule. So it appears that there are casualties that do not require wounds. Clear example of a case of "otherwise be removed as a casualty" although the poor Acro-Flagellant doesn't get WBB since the Necron rule doesn't apply to them.

 

How ? by your logic they are not part of any unit.

Necrons can become part of a new unit but only after a successful WWB roll. At the time of the SA they are still part of their parent unit.

 

For any other purpose other than teleport through a monolith they are not considered part of a unit until after the WBB roll. If successful they join the closest eligible unit.

 

The only way that Sweeping Advance in 5th Ed kills Necrons dead is if they are out of range of another unit or a Tomb Spyder. The only way to justify it otherwise is to be dealing with 4th Ed hangover, where the rule says "No save or special rule" (with a specific ruling against WBB) instead of the 5th Ed's "Unless otherwise specified, no save or special rule".

And where in the WWB rules is the mention of SA?

WWB is a 'special rule' without any specific mention of SA, it does not work.

 

See above: "or would otherwise be removed as a casualty,". SA qualifies as otherwise unless you manage to figure out how to pull units without touching models AND explain how dead, wounded, etc. isn't a casualty.

 

I've already blown the case on using ATSKNF as an example for "specific mention" because the effect of ATSKNF requires it to mention the various rule sections it applies to. ATSKNF is the justification you are using for this "specific mention" requirement.

 

Face it, Necron gauss weaponry got seriously nerfed, but WBB now works vs Sweeping Advance as long as you have the correct units in the correct place. The joys of fast changing edition rule books and codex creep.

 

The Necrons are probably in the slot for updating in the next couple of years, maybe things will change by then.

Gauss weapons work just the same, it's the vehicle damage tables that changed.

SA works just the same too, the Necron's are removed without WWB.

 

The table changed because the rules changed between editions.

 

The rules changed for Sweeping Advance too, since they no longer specifically exempt special rules, including WBB by name, from saving vs the casualties caused by SA. So, WBB works just the same, it is the Sweeping Advance rules that have changed. Just like for the vehicle damage table.

 

Notice the symmetry there?

Gauss works like in Codex, but changes to Rules made the results on the tabletop different.

WBB works like in Codex, but changes to Rules made the results on the tabletop different.

[Algesan]

Face it, Necron gauss weaponry got seriously nerfed, but WBB now works vs Sweeping Advance as long as you have the correct units in the correct place. The joys of fast changing edition rule books and codex creep.

 

I'm not sure it works this way, but that is the problem with how ambiguous it is. Honestly, RAW I see it GC08's way...but I won't play it that way. I'll allow any Necron player I confront to recover models via WBB if they didn't die to the Sweep itself, as I have been doing. It doesn't seem terribly imbalanced, and considering how the Crons are already a hard game to play (save their one tournie-worthy list), I don't see an issue with it.

 

I don't have 4th Edition hangover and that is what this is. Necrons have "always" fallen to SA, so they will "always" continue to fall to SA, despite the fact that the rule changed from absolutely no chance to not be pulled as a casualty, to "unless otherwise specified".

 

It also makes the Necrons have more than a choice between two builds to try to be competitive. Step up, RF with a unit of Warriors then charge on into CC. If you lose the SA roll, then you get WBB to pop you right back into the fight after putting some hits on that uber CC unit. Rinse, repeat as the soulless army marches onward.

[SeattleDV8]

However, the change in the 5th Ed rules allow that it is possible to have a save to Sweeping Advance, whereas in 4th Ed there was clearly no possible way to save. It doesn't matter as to intents and purposes, RAW has changed from zero chance to a chance in certain cases.

yes, if the rule mentions it works against SA , WWB doesn't mention SA , so it has zero chance to save the Unit.

 

It is an artifact of ATSKNF addressing different rules sections that requires Sweeping Advance to be mentioned directly. So the specificity of mentioning Sweeping Advance directly that you are claiming is required by using ATSKNF as your illustration does not follow.

Which is one of the sillest arguments I have ever heard. ATSKNF is an example of what it takes to over-rule SA.

Which of course WWB does not have.

 

"Any Necron model that is reduced to 0 wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged."

Correct

 

First, let's kill this silly "unit"/"model" BS. Please explain to me, after winning a SA of a group of....say Orks how you will remove the "unit" while not touching any "model". If you cannot tell us of a way to do this then to remove a "unit", you must remove at least one "model", correct?

 

Units are composed of models and is simply the designation of a group of one or more models who must conform to certain rules for movement, shooting and assaulting. In some cases the rules apply to all the models in a unit and in other times they do not.

In this case it does apply to all of the models in a unit. If you can't see the difference between a unit and a model there are several rules you are not understanding.

In this case the rule for WWB effects models that are wounded.

SA effects the entire Unit.

 

So all there is left is the issue of what is a casualty.

Heh no because you have not proven anything yet.

 

Let's see, the options given under Sweeping Advance for what happened to the losers of a Sweeping Advance are:

1. Dead

2. Wounded

3. Captured

4. Fleeing and Hiding

 

Which one of these do you consider not casualties?

Which of these is given in the fluff text? oh all of the above.

The rules state "The falling back Unit is destroyed" and "The destroyed unit is removed immediately"

I don't see any mention of cacasualty, The bit you pointed to was all under the line "we assume.."

 

 

I see where you are trying to pull this casualty thing from, but this is not the result of a shooting or close combat attack where "casualty" = "caused by wounds", this is the result of a Sweeping Advance which as I quoted previously, states a number of reasons why the models in a unit are removed as casualties.

Which you have not been able to show in any rule or otherwise prove.

 

How about we reverse this question: When is any other time a model (or unit :angry: ) is removed for any reason other than being a casualty? Is there some other time besides SA that we need to make this distinction?

Easily, Turning a model into a Chaos Spawn, Jaws of the World Wolf and the Ork character that turns models into Squigs , trapped units , units falling back that touch the table edge, units embarked on a flat out vehicle that is wrecked in it's turn to name a few off the top of my head.

Pulling out the next most handy codex, I see that Witch Hunter Arco-Flagellants can be removed as casualties (yes, the magic word is used, not once, but twice) and the word "wound" appears nowhere in the rule. So it appears that there are casualties that do not require wounds. Clear example of a case of "otherwise be removed as a casualty" although the poor Acro-Flagellant doesn't get WBB since the Necron rule doesn't apply to them.

Wow models that are WH Codex pg. 28 "removed as a casuality" are a casualty.

 

For any other purpose other than teleport through a monolith they are not considered part of a unit until after the WBB roll.

Okay , that part you just made up, that rule does not exist.

If successful they join the closest eligible unit.

Agreed, if successful, until then I have shown that they are still part of the parent unit.

 

See above: "or would otherwise be removed as a casualty,". SA qualifies as otherwise unless you manage to figure out how to pull units without touching models AND explain how dead, wounded, etc. isn't a casualty.

you have not proved that, and besides it is still the unit that is removed not models.

 

I've already blown the case on using ATSKNF as an example for "specific mention" because the effect of ATSKNF requires it to mention the various rule sections it applies to. ATSKNF is the justification you are using for this "specific mention" requirement.

Stating that without any rules is more opinion , you have not proven anything.

 

 

The rules changed for Sweeping Advance too, since they no longer specifically exempt special rules,

BRB pg. 40 " or other special rules can rescue the unit..."

WWB is a 'special rule' it does not work with SA.

I don't have 4th Edition hangover and that is what this is. Necrons have "always" fallen to SA, so they will "always" continue to fall to SA, despite the fact that the rule changed from absolutely no chance to not be pulled as a casualty, to "unless otherwise specified".

Which you still have not shown, all that you have shown is wishful thinking.

[greatcrusade08]

I think this whole argument is getting a little silly.. by pure RAW necrons do not leave the unit when 'downed'.. as the whole unit is removed by SA then the downed models are too... being part of the unit..

 

its really that simple.. occums razor applies i guess.

 

as to the difference between what a casualty is and what removes from play is, well the rulebook defines what a casualty is.. a model that has taken wounds which reduces its value to 0.

just becuase the WH book doesnt qualify what a casualty means doesnt mean that somehow overrides the rulebook.... the WH dex doesnt give movement values either, does that mean they arent allowed to move?

 

whether or not its fair is another matter, its just how the rules are written..

the necron WBB rule clearly states this:

Damaged Necrons ignore the normal coherency rules and cannot be attacked in any way

Why would it allow a breach of unit coherancy rules it it didnt consider them to be part of the unit..

 

riddle me that!

[Dan VK]

Some claim any rule modifying the Sweeping Advance rules must use ‘sweeping advance’ in its wording. Some do not accept this interpretation and believe citing the same circumstance and modifying the ensuing rules is enough. Some claim “removed from play” is different than “removed as a casualty.” Some disagree, citing a lack of a passage directly stating a difference. They refuse to accept a strong implication as decisive evidence, much like those who insist ‘sweeping advance’ must be used for an exception.

 

I see as much discussion about the posters as I see about the arguments they have put forth (if you check my previous posts you will find I am guilty of this as well). As a rules forum, we are supposed to be focusing on the rules and arguments pertaining to them so we can develop a clear interpretation supported by evidence. Bringing a poster's motivations or thought patterns (we are all wishful that our opinion is correct) into the discussion does nothing to forward it. :angry:

 

The bottom line is that this issue is not going to be solved because there is not sufficient evidence to bring consensus. It needs a FAQ answer. :yes:

[greatcrusade08]

it has an FAQ answer... which is they are removed.

 

but just to clarify there is enough evidence, but people are ignoring it in favour of thier own brand of RAI or wishful thinking

[Dan VK]

I do not think the FAQ answer you are referring to addresses the question at hand. Let me rephrase my previous statement: there are enough dissenters that there will continue to be debate over the same points unless additional evidence is presented, and there is no additional evidence to present. I think it is time to agree to disagree over the RAW (because RAI are obvious; no one survives being sectioned/dismantled while helplessly fleeing) and hope the issue is addressed in an updated FAQ or a new Codex. There really is nothing more to say.

[greatcrusade08]

so what your saying is if enough people disgaree with the RAW in favour of RAI then we should what? throw out the RAW?

 

simply agreeing to disagree doesnt work, becuase this is a rule that is important to every game vs necrons.

The simple fact is WBB only works for casualties.. SA doesnt inflict casualties.

downed models do not leave the unit, so when the unit is removed they are too.,

 

 

if you can counter the above without resorting to RAI or 'fairness' then fine ill agree to disagree but simple fact is RAW is clear

[Mezkh]

Achieving consensus leads to mitigation of minority objection.

 

I would posit that a majority of players would agree that 'unless otherwise specified' means it must 'specify in order to be otherwise'.

Therefore, the same majority would also agree that special rules that don't otherwise specify therefore couldn't save a unit when it is subjected to a rule that says 'remove your unit from the table, it takes no further part in the game, and no special rules can save it unless otherwise specified.'

 

So the dissenting agenda then hinges their argument on 'downed models don't belong to a/the unit', to wiggle out of 'remove your unit from the table.

Which has been shown to be false by a multitude of counter-arguments.

 

The RAW is open and shut, unless you try to reinvent the English language, which seems to be the direction this thread is heading.

[SeattleDV8]

Granted I did get a bit rough in my last answer, but I tend to do that when someone offers opinion instead of supporting rules in a discussion.

There are many rules and rule interactions that are grey. In regards to those I will offer an opinion but I will also make it clear that that is all it is.

In this case there is a clear history, a rule that is unchanged (except for an example) , and a pretty good amount of supporting rules and FAQs.

If you disagree , great! Now give us a reason, backed by rules and logic why my view is wrong and yours correct.

By all means if you and your group think that is unbalanced against the Necrons House Rule it.

Ask me and I will probably let you, barring a tournament or other factors.

Like Culven from Warseer has stated,

We debate RaW, not in an attempt to gain an advantage, but rather to better understand the rules as they are written so that problems can be identified, addressed, and possible solutions developed before we get to the game table.

[Dan VK]

so what your saying is if enough people disgaree with the RAW in favour of RAI then we should what? throw out the RAW?

 

That is not what I was suggesting. I am pointing out that every major point has been tossed back and forth with no resolution, indicating that there is no irrefutable proof to end the discussion.

 

The simple fact is WBB only works for casualties.. SA doesnt inflict casualties.

downed models do not leave the unit, so when the unit is removed they are too.,

 

 

if you can counter the above without resorting to RAI or 'fairness' then fine ill agree to disagree but simple fact is RAW is clear

 

If someone quotes me the sentence in the BRB that defines the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" then I will gladly eat my hat. I will eat it twice if someone quotes the definition of 'casualty' from the BRB. Its definition is suggested solely by implication. This is the worst example of rules from different editions interacting poorly that I have yet encountered and my gaming group has already achieved consensus regarding it so I have no vested interest in continuing to participate in this discussion.

 

So the dissenting agenda then hinges their argument on 'downed models don't belong to a/the unit', to wiggle out of 'remove your unit from the table.

Which has been shown to be false by a multitude of counter-arguments.

 

My dissent (no "agenda," thank you very much) is over the assumed definition of 'casualties'. I completely agree that Necrons waiting to make their self-repair rolls remain part of the unit.

 

 

I have stated my reason, backed by logic in my opinion. Nothing new has been presented, and I have nothing new to present.

 

[EDIT: SeattleDV8 said what I was trying to say better than I did.]

[sECOND EDIT: Added another statement.]

[greatcrusade08]

If someone quotes me the sentence in the BRB that defines the difference between "removed from play" and "removed as a casualty" then I will gladly eat my hat. I will eat it twice if someone quotes the definition of 'casualty' from the BRB. It is defined solely by implication. This is the worst example of rules from different editions interacting poorly that I have yet encountered and my gaming group has already achieved consensus regarding it so I have no vested interest in continuing to participate in this discussion.

 

you are having a laugh right?

This has got to be the single most flimsiest reason for arguing RAW.

read the BRB under removing casualties.. trust me its a long process involving taking wounds and failing saving throws.. SA doesnt do any of that, simply says the unit is destroyed and removed from play.

[Dan VK]

read the BRB under removing casualties.. trust me its a long process involving taking wounds and failing saving throws.. SA doesnt do any of that, simply says the unit is destroyed and removed from play.

 

You missed my point again. I have stated my argument in a previous post.

[Legatus]

whether or not its fair is another matter, its just how the rules are written..

the necron WBB rule clearly states this:

Damaged Necrons ignore the normal coherency rules and cannot be attacked in any way

Why would it allow a breach of unit coherancy rules it it didnt consider them to be part of the unit..

 

riddle me that!

Because player might assume that WBB is just some form of additional save, similar to FnP (which it really isn't), and would assume that the damaged Necrons and the surviving Necrons of the parent unit would have to try to maintain coherency. But tehy don't, and when the damaged Necrons repair and an entirely different unit happens to be closer to them than their parent unit, they will join that unit instead.

 

Here are my objcting arguments:

 

- damaged Necrons do not count as models for the purpose of 'Phase Out' (Codex Necrons, p. 13)

 

- damaged Necrons do not count toward the parent unit strength for the purpose of meeting prerequisites to regroup

 

- damaged Necrons do not count as "Necron models of the same type" for the purpose of other nearby Necrons being able to repair or not (Necrons FaQ, p. 1)

 

- repaired Necrons will join the closest unit of the same Type, irrespective of it's parent unit (Codex Necrons, p. 13)

 

- it is determined whether or not a Necron model will be generally allowed a WBB roll or whether he wont because he was killed by a power weapon or double strength weapon at the time the model is killed (Necrons FaQ, p. 1) whether there are Necron models of the same type within range is checked at the time WBB rolls are taken at the beginning of the Necron turn

 

 

In other words, it seems pretty apparent that neither will the parent unit or other nearby models of the same type benefit from the damaged Necron models, nor are the damaged Necron models dependant on the parent unit being near them or around at all in order to be allowed a WBB roll. They are very much self contained models at that point.

The only instance where that does not seem to be the case is when the parent unit is teleported by a Monolith. But it seems to me that this is the deviation from the general rules for WBB I listed above, due to the Monolith rules specifically stating so, and not the general rule for damaged Necrons while all teh instances above are deviations.

 

The norm seems to be this:

 

- A Necron model is killed by a non-power weapon

 

--> because it was not a power weapon the model can attempt WBB --> so is laid down on the table instead of being removed

 

--> whatever happens to the rest of the unit is completely irrelevant for this model. It was not killed by a power weapon, so it will generally be allowed to attempt WBB

 

--> Necron Turn: if there are any Necron Models of the same type within 6" of the damaged Necron, it can now roll for WBB. Whether it's parent unit is gone entirely does not matter to this Necron at all.

[SeattleDV8]

Fair enough, the downed models are in a quasi state and are disregarded ( treated as derbis) for most cases, but not all cases.

 

For example The last paragraph of the Power Matrix description and two FAQs, one where the models move with the Falling Back unit all show us that they still are part of the parent unit until the WWB test.

 

So it is not only the Monolith rules that 'deviates' from the general Necron rules.

I find little support for the idea that they are a self contained and too many places where they are not.

If the entire unit is downed the models would be removed with no WWB unless there is another unit with-in range.

That would be an exception to the general WWB rules.

[greatcrusade08]

Legatus makes a fair point but is skirting the main issue of whether or not the WBB rule says they 'arent' part of the unit.. he argues simply whats implied or RAI.

does the WBB rule state that downed models are not part of the unit.. no, infact the point about ignoring cohernacy suggest the opposite.

 

the rule that allows them to join another unit doesnt come into effect until a WBB roll is passed so is infact not important to this argument.. fact is they arent independant characters and havent been 'allowed' to free themselves from thier current unit at this point.. they may be down and count as debris but they are still part of the unit for ther purposes of SA.

 

they may be debris, but they still exist and are still in play/on the table