Necrons - Kill by Sweeping Advance?

[Algesan]

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

 

Your opinion.

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.

 

So, you are not using ATSKNF as an illustration, you are trying to use it as a precedent. As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, that is not valid since it is trying to use a codex to interpret another codex. In fact, I did a reductio ad absurdum on that concept that you managed to mistake for a strawman.

 

Oh, you also managed to duck the reasoning why ATSKNF applies as the foundation of your case for "specific mention" vs my counter that SA gets "specific mention" in ATSKNF because ATSKNF applies to different sections of rules. You do realize that ATSKNF mentions more than one rule, don't you?

 

"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

 

Which makes my point unless you do all the silly unit/model/casualty redefinition special pleading thing.

 

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.

 

Thank you. "...all of the models in a unit." Which means that I'm actually seeing the relationship between model and unit and using the RAW definition better than you are. A unit consists of models so this "remove the unit" blather is just that

 

Heh no because you have not proven anything yet.

 

I've proved that you are trying to use a codex special rule to interpret another codex's special rule and/or the BRB.

 

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

 

Explanatory notes in rules are now fluff. Got it. B)

 

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.."

 

The reason for removing all of the models of the unit is that all of the models have just become casualties. What does WBB say about models to be removed as casualties?

 

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

 

Showed you two rules, one from the Necron codex and one from the BRB. You redefine the first using a SM special rule from the SM codex and you redefine the second as "fluff". Well, yeah, if you get to redefine things how you want without support, then I guess you can win any rules debate and nobody can ever show why otherwise.

 

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.

 

Cannot address those codex specific special rules since I don't have the codices. However, let's see what is left:

Trapped units: Destroyed. This falls under the same unit/model/casualty redefinition. The models are casualties.

Table Edge: Destroyed. See above. What you have defined as "fluff" rules says the models scatter and desert.

Flat out vehicle wreck: Well, technically, those units were never on the board unless you are using one on top of it for a marker, but what does the latest FAQ say? A: They are removed as casualties.

 

How about a dictionary definition of casualty:

1. Military .

a. a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.

b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.

Emphasis added. So, when a model fails to save vs. a wound it becomes a casualty. HEY, that fits the dictionary definition. Look, a bunch of the explanatory rules show up as causes of casualties too, including every last example you tried to claim wasn't a "casualty" above. Amazing!

 

RAW agrees with the dictionary in all examples from the rules, so why should anyone accept the special redefinition that is one of the key requirements for the "SA doesn't allow WBB" position?

 

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.

 

So, for SA, ATSKNF from C:SM applies to define and interpret for SA, but when using C:WH for defining casualty it is a little codex specific rule (or "fluff" again?). Your example as you define it rules for your definition and any examples that overrule your special definition use are merely little codex quirks. Got it. ;)

 

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

 

Simple logic when dealing with an apparent contradiction that isn't really one.

 

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

 

Nope, you quoted the special case for monolith teleporting giving an extra WBB chance. So, if you really wanted to follow that chain out, they aren't part of the original parent unit when they are damaged until after they fail the first WBB, then they may rejoin the original parent unit for an additional WBB roll after monolith teleport. It took longer to type the first sentence than it did to logically resolve this false contradiction you are using as a justification.

 

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

 

You can never "prove" anything to someone who adamantly demands their own opinions are the gospel truth and all else is bushwa.

 

Oh, how do you remove a unit without removing the models? You pulled an ad hom on that one last time and then refuted yourself above. Figure out how you do that and where it says that Codex A interprets Codex B and I'll happily be on your side.

 

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

 

I have to find a rule that says that Codex A does not interpret Codex B?! Really?!

 

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

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

 

True by specific mention in 4th Ed, not true in 5th Ed. WBB applies when a model would "otherwise be removed as a casualty", which is why you have to have your special definition of casualty not consistent with the dictionary definition given above..

 

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

 

No, I've shown a whole bunch of stuff that you cannot manage to address without special pleading for C:SM codex rules to apply to the rules and other codices and redefinition of word usage to fit your position.

[Algesan]

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. <_<

 

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. :(

 

Consensus that the sky is green because 50%+1 of the people discussing it think it is true doesn't make the sky green or any less blue. It also doesn't give any validity to the logic and reasoning of the green sky people.

 

This is NOT a comment about either side of this debate (specifically put in because it does sound that way), but simply a comment on the fuzzy reasoning being taught in schools these days that thinks that just because someone has a strong opinion, objective standards have to be set aside to accommodate their opinion.

[dswanick]

Wall of text + supplement

So by your reasoning: if I deep strike a unit of Necron Warriors using Veil of Darkness, roll a scatter which puts the unit into impassible terrain, then roll a 1 - Terrible Accident! mishap, I can roll WBB for the entire unit because it's been destroyed=all are casualties?

So by your reasoning: a unit of Necron Warriors are falling back, when they reach the table edge and are removed (as casualties, according to your logic), they instead get a WBB save?

How about we reverse this question: When is any other time a model (or unit <_< ) 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.

See my two examples above.

[Mezkh]

In the world of Warhammer 40k with it's defined terms, models that become casualties end up removed from play, but not all models removed from play are casualties.

 

You're the first Necron player I've seen who won't come to terms with that...

[Bracks0682]

Necrons have a remarkable ability to self repair even to the most horrendous damage. 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 its damaged. Damaged Necrons are ignored completely for all normal game purposes such as UNIT COHERENCY, measuring ranges,calculating whether other units can self repair, and so on.. They are debris..

 

So if a unit of Necons are shot at then assaulted and after that swept away the damaged necrons remain until thier next turn for WBB rolls if aloud..

 

Please note that as they are debris they would give cover...

 

I will check with other rule's but this is the way I've played with and against Necrons...

[SeattleDV8]

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind as you already have many misconceptions about the rules.

Not understanding the defined meaning of casualties, the difference between units and model, or even that embarked models are 'on the table' all show a flawed basis.

Without a shared basic understanding there can be no meaninfull debate.

Using the dictionary definition generally points to a weak rules point.

 

So I'll let my points stand on their own.

 

I'm reminded of the quote ""Never try to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

[Mezkh]

Necrons have a remarkable ability to self repair even to the most horrendous damage. 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 its damaged. Damaged Necrons are ignored completely for all normal game purposes such as UNIT COHERENCY, measuring ranges,calculating whether other units can self repair, and so on.. They are debris..

 

So if a unit of Necons are shot at then assaulted and after that swept away the damaged necrons remain until thier next turn for WBB rolls if aloud..

 

Please note that as they are debris they would give cover...

 

I will check with other rule's but this is the way I've played with and against Necrons...

 

'Ignores unit coherency' is not equal to 'is no longer a part of the unit'.

 

The keyword being coherency. The rule is saying your Necrons that remain standing don't have to remain in coherency with those in their unit who are damaged.

 

Also saying they give cover is highly disputable.

[greatcrusade08]

The problem here is that Algesan is making the assumption that removed from play means removed as casualties.. it simply does not.

So the dictionary has an interesting meaning for the term casualty, have you checked the term removed from play yet?

 

basically in the world of RAW you cant start making these assumptions, if GW meant they were removed as causalties, thats exactly wehat they would have said.. they do so in many other cases for clarity...

This is purposely not a casualty issue, its a removed from play issue..

 

removing from play does not allow necrons the use of WBB and nothing said here can counter that argument

[Legatus]

"If the winner's total is equal or greater they catch the fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling back unit is destroyed. (...) The destroyed unit is removed immediately."

BRB, p. 40.

 

"At the end of a combat, if a unit's opponents are all either destroyed or falling back, so that the victorious unit is no longer locked in combat with any enemy, they may consolidate."

BRB, p. 40.

 

 

So, if Necron models lying on the side awaiting WBB can be detroyed together with their unit being caught by a sweeping advance, I guess that means they would not already count as destroyed when lying and awaiting WBB. That would mean that if an enemy unit killed all Necrons in a combat, but some of them were killed in the previous shooting phase or with non-power weapons, that victorious enemy unit now cannot make a consolidation move, as not all of the unit's opponents are destroyed?

[SeattleDV8]

No, because the downed ones can not be attacked, as per Codex.

Good point though.

[Spacefrisian]

Whats the worry about 1 simple rule check youtube and search for "rules you get wrong" Necron Well be back. It will a ll be crystal clear after seeing that.

[Legatus]

In that video the narrator did not really explain why necron models on the ground are removed if the parent unit gets caught in a sweeping advance, he merely asserted it. And unless he was some GW rules guy that does not really carry any weight. So it is not really helpful to this debate.

[Spacefrisian]

Its because this debate is more like a "iam right and you are wrong, no iam right and you are wrong" thing.

[Algesan]

So by your reasoning: if I deep strike a unit of Necron Warriors using Veil of Darkness, roll a scatter which puts the unit into impassible terrain, then roll a 1 - Terrible Accident! mishap, I can roll WBB for the entire unit because it's been destroyed=all are casualties?

So by your reasoning: a unit of Necron Warriors are falling back, when they reach the table edge and are removed (as casualties, according to your logic), they instead get a WBB save?

 

 

See my two examples above.

 

Nope, if you had actually tried to address my points honestly you would know why it follows logically that those models don't get WBB. Stay focused on the rules section involved and the point under discussion. I understand why the anti-WBB crowd are playing the unit/model/casualty word games and I can even quote the rules sections if I feel like typing them where this convoluted logic comes from and even referred to the source of the anti-WBB redefinition of casualty. The fun part? I don't have start discarding RAW as "fluff" to make the definition of casualty fit into the result I'm arriving at.

 

You have to follow the discussion better, my example was a rebuttal to the silliness of saying that the only way that a model can be a "casualty" was if there was a saving throw vs a wound possible AND that no other definition will fit that the anti-WBB demands as a key part of their position. That example (and in this case, it only takes one to kill this key assumption) shows they are incorrect and has the side benefit of again pointing out that trying to use Codex A to define how the BRB and any other Codex rules is also invalid.

 

In the world of Warhammer 40k with it's defined terms, models that become casualties end up removed from play, but not all models removed from play are casualties.

 

You're the first Necron player I've seen who won't come to terms with that...

 

I've shown the logic is flawed and the anti-WBB crowd has never even tried to address it except through reasserting their original talking points that I've shown to be flawed. BTW, is there a game terms dictionary somewhere? Unit and Model are well defined in the first section where Dice, Models & Units, Unit Types and Characteristics are discussed to introduce new players to critical terms.

 

Well, I've got some models, the codex, some tacticas and have done some solo stuff to get some of the interactions down, but I haven't played them against another player, so I don't know if that qualifies me as a Necron player. Of course, I might accept the position of the anti-WBB crowd, but they don't seem to be able to address any of my points without resorting to redefinitions that don't make sense and force RAW in the BRB to become "fluff".

 

As for "coming to terms", I'll assume it wasn't meant to be personal and being from the southeast USA I'd hate to say what that sounded like when I first read it.

 

It's clear I'm not going to change your mind as you already have many misconceptions about the rules.

Not understanding the defined meaning of casualties, the difference between units and model, or even that embarked models are 'on the table' all show a flawed basis.

Without a shared basic understanding there can be no meaninfull debate.

Using the dictionary definition generally points to a weak rules point.

 

So I'll let my points stand on their own.

 

I'm reminded of the quote ""Never try to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

 

Elephant hurling and ad hom as a smoke screen to cover retreat.

 

Points that require redefining RAW as "fluff" and discarded.

 

Ability to know and use the English language correctly a negative when rules have no glossary. Got it.

 

Okay, don't confuse you with the facts, your mind is made up. Got it.

 

The problem here is that Algesan is making the assumption that removed from play means removed as casualties.. it simply does not.

So the dictionary has an interesting meaning for the term casualty, have you checked the term removed from play yet?

 

basically in the world of RAW you cant start making these assumptions, if GW meant they were removed as causalties, thats exactly wehat they would have said.. they do so in many other cases for clarity...

This is purposely not a casualty issue, its a removed from play issue..

 

removing from play does not allow necrons the use of WBB and nothing said here can counter that argument

 

Heh, again I'm being asked to provide something that not only doesn't exist, but something that cannot exist because dictionaries define words, not phrases. Got it.

 

How about you provide a glossary of terms from a GW source? It would support your RAW claim. If not, then it becomes a case of your RAI(nterpreted) definition. Using the rulebook Index page doesn't cut it. Oh, did you notice that in the Assault section for Removing Casualties it reads "All the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat." Emphasis added. Specifically the reference is to casualties caused by shooting and the casualties caused by close combat. Which means the definition you are using only applies to the rules sections it comes from the casualties from shooting and close combat.

 

I've been using RAW and without a glossary giving the specialized definitions to words that vary from the standard English definitions, then the rules of standard English apply. I'm not going to requote the WBB rule, but your claimed specialized definition of casualty requires a model to be reduced to zero wounds since you are taking it from the Shooting and Assaulting phase rules. When is the "or would otherwise" clause in effect? Your position requires discarding the second clause of the key sentence from the Necron Codex as irrelevant since there is no other way to be a casualty by your definition.

 

By where you derived your contrived definition of casualty from, all models reduced to zero wounds are "immediately removed", so by your logic of "removing from play does not allow necrons the use of WBB and nothing said here can counter that argument", this also negates the WBB rolls. After all, the magic words "immediately removed" are there.

 

WHEEE! YOU WIN! NECRONS NEVER EVER EVER GET WBB ROLLS!

 

I've played against people like you many many times in many many games for many many years. Our game would be short, the first time you pulled one of these "I am the prophet of the rule book and all my words are holy and beyond question and discussion" moments you just openly had above, I'd say you win, pick up my stuff and walk.

 

I do thank you though. When I get around to playing in tournaments, even if they are just little local ones, I'm getting a clue to the caliber of rules lawyers and I'll adjust what army and/or list I play around whatever silliness they want to play with. For example, if they use your one codex's special rule interprets another codex's special rule trick, then I probably won't be running my C:WH with the Inquisitor Lord wearing a psyhood. Yes, that is a real live example of what you are doing applied to another rule.

[Dan VK]

:D

 

I am with Spacefrisian. The :lol: and ;) have reached :) levels.

[Isiah]

Indeed gents you are going to need to keep to the issue at hand and not argue about the discussion itself nor about who's right and who's wrong. Stick to the issue of the rules and leave the personal snipey stuff out.

 

Otherwise posts risk being edited or plain deleted.

 

Cheers

I

[greatcrusade08]

Algesan i find your attitude very disturbing, you accuse us of being rules lawyers becuase we take "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" as meaning two different things.

yuo cant accuse us oif using RAI here becuase the words are clearly defined as being different, much the same way as a GK force weapon can beat eternal warrior.. it doesnt cause instant death, it removes them from play.

this is fully accepted and a good precedent..

 

The fact they show what a casualty is in the rulebook.. i.e someone who has been wounded, failed a save and has thier wounds reduced to 0, then it clearly doesnt apply to SA.. you cant use the dictionary verison of the word to replcae the GW defined version.. the word casualty in the rulebook has a context, you cant ignore that.

 

heres one for you, where does it say in the rulebook that removed from play is the same as removing as casualties, moreover where does it say that WBB can be used to counter sweeping advance?

the fact that the rule is the same as it was in 4th, but had WBB replaced with 'any special saves' gives us a precedent to work from.. whether you like it or not.

 

RAW states that models caught by SA are removed from play.. NOT removed as casualties.. anything you say to the counter is not RAW..

[Marshal Wilhelm]

What happens with Jaws of the World Wolf?

Casualty or removed from play?

[dswanick]

So by your reasoning: if I deep strike a unit of Necron Warriors using Veil of Darkness, roll a scatter which puts the unit into impassible terrain, then roll a 1 - Terrible Accident! mishap, I can roll WBB for the entire unit because it's been destroyed=all are casualties?

So by your reasoning: a unit of Necron Warriors are falling back, when they reach the table edge and are removed (as casualties, according to your logic), they instead get a WBB save?

 

 

See my two examples above.

 

Nope, if you had actually tried to address my points honestly you would know why it follows logically that those models don't get WBB. Stay focused on the rules section involved and the point under discussion. I understand why the anti-WBB crowd are playing the unit/model/casualty word games and I can even quote the rules sections if I feel like typing them where this convoluted logic comes from and even referred to the source of the anti-WBB redefinition of casualty. The fun part? I don't have start discarding RAW as "fluff" to make the definition of casualty fit into the result I'm arriving at.

 

You have to follow the discussion better, my example was a rebuttal to the silliness of saying that the only way that a model can be a "casualty" was if there was a saving throw vs a wound possible AND that no other definition will fit that the anti-WBB demands as a key part of their position. That example (and in this case, it only takes one to kill this key assumption) shows they are incorrect and has the side benefit of again pointing out that trying to use Codex A to define how the BRB and any other Codex rules is also invalid.

Your walls of text are impressive, yet entirely irrelevant.

WE'LL BE BACK - 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 is damaged.

I don't think there's much need to go into what 0 Wounds means, as it's not the purpose of this thread, nor anything you're arguing against.

So what does it mean to be a casualty?

Casualties, 24, 39

THE SHOOTING SEQUENCE

6 REMOVE CASUALTIES - For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wouod. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty.

THE ASSAULT PHASE

3 RESOLVE COMBATS

REMOVING CASUALTIES - All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat.

OK, so now we have some idea of what RAW casualties means. So now lets go to the question of the origional poster - Necrons - Kill by Sweeping Advance?

SWEEPING ADVANCE - When a unit falls back from combat, the victors make a Sweeping Advance, attempting to cut down the retreating enemies. Both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6 and add their Initiative value to the result . Always count the Initiative value from the model's profile without any modifiers. In a unit with mixed Initiative characteristics count the majority value, or the highest if there is no majority.

They then compare their totals.

• If the winner's total is equal or greater they catch the fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling back unit is destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified , no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

Note the complete lack of the Remove Casualties process or even the mention of the term casualties. Note that this rule declares that even special rules can't rescue the unit at this stage. Note that it gives the example that maybe the unit is fleeing and hiding, therefore there is no debris to resurrect. The rule says that the The falling back unit is destroyed. Just as in my two previous examples of Deep Strike Mishap and Falling Back to the board edge which both state that the unit is destroyed without recourse to the casualties process. Casualty removal is a step in the process of the Shooting and Assault phases. Sweeping Advance, Deep Strike Mishaps, Falling Back to the table edge, Jaws of the World Wolf, etc are all special circumstances outside of the Shooting and Assault phases normal process none of which trigger Casualty removal. I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm sorry GW boned Necrons. When the new codex comes out, I truly hope that the Necrons receive a balanced and multifaceted codex which allows for many competative builds. But, until that happens Necron players are stuck with a Rule As Written which can only save your models from casualties, not any removal from the board which you want it to save them from.

[greatcrusade08]

dswanick gets +1 for sheer quoting power.. RAW is very clear in this situation

[Legatus]

I do feel that being "removed as a casualty" because of being killed, knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way (BRB, p. 24) is identical with being "removed from play" because of teleporting into a rock, fleeing from the battle, being swallowed by the ground, being turned into a spawn or being run down by victorious enemies after a combat.

But I also feel that those things that never allow a save and would remove a model outright no matter how many wounds it had or wheter it was an 'eternal warrior' will never allow WBB.

 

My issue personally is not about being run down allowing WBB. For me it is more about the damaged models on the ground not being run down.

 

 

You might get situations like this:

 

A Marine Assault Squad attacks a unit of 10 Necron Warriors. 5 Warriors die to bolt pistols and flamers. In the following assault phase, the remaining 5 Warriors are killed by Chainswords.

--> As long as there is another unit of the same type within 6", all of those models can attempt WBB.

 

Next scenario: The same Marine unit attacks the same unit of 10 Necrons. 5 Warriors die to bolt pistols and flamers. However, only 4 of the remaining warriors are then killed by Chainswords, while 1 Warrior survives the attacks. He then has to pass a Morale check (with -4 Ld), fails that check, and is then of course run down by the assault Marines.

 

The situation is not much different from the first scenario for the majority of the models. 9 Necron Warriors died to bolt pistols, flamers and chainswords. However, just because one model was not killed and got run down they are all denied their WBB rolls?

[dswanick]

I do feel that being "removed as a casualty" because of being killed, knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way (BRB, p. 24) is identical with being "removed from play" because of teleporting into a rock, fleeing from the battle, being swallowed by the ground, being turned into a spawn or being run down by victorious enemies after a combat.

But I also feel that those things that never allow a save and would remove a model outright no matter how many wounds it had or wheter it was an 'eternal warrior' will never allow WBB.

 

My issue personally is not about being run down allowing WBB. For me it is more about the damaged models on the ground not being run down.

 

 

You might get situations like this:

 

A Marine Assault Squad attacks a unit of 10 Necron Warriors. 5 Warriors die to bolt pistols and flamers. In the following assault phase, the remaining 5 Warriors are killed by Chainswords.

--> As long as there is another unit of the same type within 6", all of those models can attempt WBB.

 

Next scenario: The same Marine unit attacks the same unit of 10 Necrons. 5 Warriors die to bolt pistols and flamers. However, only 4 of the remaining warriors are then killed by Chainswords, while 1 Warrior survives the attacks. He then has to pass a Morale check (with -4 Ld), fails that check, and is then of course run down by the assault Marines.

 

The situation is not much different from the first scenario for the majority of the models. 9 Necron Warriors died to bolt pistols, flamers and chainswords. However, just because one model was not killed and got run down they are all denied their WBB rolls?

Well, there is no RAW for your question. There are inferences that can be drawn from how each of the rules are written and interact, but GW did not specify how to handle this situation. As this is neither the OPs question, a RAW answer to his question, nor covered by RAW - the best we can do in an + OFFICIAL RULES + forum is punt. (personally I tend to agree with you on this issue. Debris doesn't get Sweeping advanced, nor does it get run down and destroyed, scattered, nor hiding - I don't see why they shouldn't get a WBB roll. However that's RAI and/or House Rules)

[greatcrusade08]

in answer to that question i stick to the fact that the WBB rule doesnt permit the downed necron from leaving his parent unit.. all other considerations are secondary to this point.. being treated as debris and cannot be attacked doesnt preclude them from sweeping advance, just from being attacked.

 

if they are on the table they are still in play.. the WBB merely says they cannot be attacked whilst downed, and that they can ignore unit coherancy (a point btw which supports the notion they are still part of the parent unit)

 

the issue here is that SA removes the whole unit, and people are claiming the downed necrons are not part of the unit.

sure we dont have RAW to say they are.. but if they are still 'in play/on the table' and they havent been given 'permission' to leave thier unit, then they are still part of the parent unit..

GW wouldnt state the abvious aqlthough i grant you the whole thing isnt worded well.

 

they dont get the choice to join a different unit until after a successful WBB roll, which is not relevant considering SA happens before this.

with no other considerations in the rules, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they have left thier parent unit and IMO its just wishful thinking to assume otherwise without a rule to back it up (which thier isnt)

[dswanick]

in answer to that question i stick to the fact that the WBB rule doesnt permit the downed necron from leaving his parent unit.. all other considerations are secondary to this point.. being treated as debris and cannot be attacked doesnt preclude them from sweeping advance, just from being attacked.

 

if they are on the table they are still in play.. the WBB merely says they cannot be attacked whilst downed, and that they can ignore unit coherancy (a point btw which supports the notion they are still part of the parent unit)

 

the issue here is that SA removes the whole unit, and people are claiming the downed necrons are not part of the unit.

sure we dont have RAW to say they are.. but if they are still 'in play/on the table' and they havent been given 'permission' to leave thier unit, then they are still part of the parent unit..GW wouldnt state the abvious aqlthough i grant you the whole thing isnt worded well.

 

they dont get the choice to join a different unit until after a successful WBB roll, which is not relevant considering SA happens before this.

with no other considerations in the rules, there is absolutely nothing to suggest they have left thier parent unit and IMO its just wishful thinking to assume otherwise without a rule to back it up (which thier isnt)

OK. As an aside to the main question of the OP and the whole purpose of a RAW forum...I see your point.

- So the WBB rule allows these downed Necrons to not count towards the Unit Coherency rules, because the WBB rule says they don't count.

- Do those downed Necrons count towards unit strength for the purposes of being over half strength for Regrouping? The WBB rule doesn't say they don't count.

- Do the downed Necrons count for Phase out? The WBB rule doesn't say they don't count.

- Can the parent unit move at all? The WBB rule doesn't allow some of the models to move at more than the speed of the slowest models (the downed Necrons with a move of 0")?

So by the logic that "they are on the table/in play, they are part of the unit" then they should still count towards the unit size for Regroup, Phase out, and should slow the whole unit to a move of 0".

Do you see the problem with that RAI logic when followed through to completion? Unfortunately, there is no RAW for this issue. There is only RAI/House Rule. Either way - there are comprimises that have to be made such that no one is going to completely get their way. Personally, and in my local game group, we play that the downed models are just place holding 'tokens' they are not Necrons, they are not members of a unit while down, they were casualties which now have no further in-game influence unless they make a We'll Be Back roll. But that's just our comprimise. And as such this means they would not be removed with a Sweeping Advance removal of their 'parent unit", but that's just our house rule.

[SeattleDV8]

A perfectly reasonable way to play it.

If your group is happy great, just be aware some tournaments, and people, may not share your view.

So it is always, no matter which army you play, a good idea to discuss these type of rules with the TO, or opponent, before the event.

Be proactive and it will help keep the agruments during play to a minimum, as well as your help sportmanship scores.

If the tournament uses the INAT you would out of luck.

"NEC.13A.02 – Q: If a Necron unit is wiped out by a Sweeping Advance in close combat, can any of the models in the unit (including its damaged ones) use „We‟ll Be Back!‟ to repair themselves?

A: No, as a special rule cannot be used to save models from a Sweeping Advance [clarification]."

 

Note, yes I know.

This is a third party FAQ and has no standing in a rules debate.

It is someones Opinion on how to treat this and other rules.

I'm only pointing out that this could be used in some tournaments and if so, let you be forwarned.