Jump to content

Necrons - Kill by Sweeping Advance?


igotsmeakabob!!

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually your wrong, the coldex does trump the rulebook but the two rules have nothing to do with each other..

the WBB rule covers models that are removed as casualties.. sweeping advance doesnt remove as casualties hence WBB rule cannot override it.

 

That section of the WBB rule details how 'debry' Necorns work in the game. Which includes SA and all facets of 'normal play'.

 

This section of the WBB rule overides the SA section in the main book. As Codex > rulebook.

 

There shouldn't be any RAW debate on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually your wrong, the coldex does trump the rulebook but the two rules have nothing to do with each other..

the WBB rule covers models that are removed as casualties.. sweeping advance doesnt remove as casualties hence WBB rule cannot override it.

 

That section of the WBB rule details how 'debry' Necorns work in the game. Which includes SA and all facets of 'normal play'.

 

This section of the WBB rule overides the SA section in the main book. As Codex > rulebook.

There shouldn't be any RAW debate on this.

I challenge you to show me a RAW quote were Codex > Rulebook, as opposed to Specific > General.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even if you could find the quote you still cant use WBB to counter SA becuase WBB covers removing casualties only.. whereas SA works by removing models from play..

 

removing casualties is not the same as removing models from play.. and nothing anyone has said can counter this fact..

its the same way many other factors work too.. JotWW, GK force weapons etc.

 

Heres na question.. if i beat a unit of necrons and 'sweep' them.. what happens to them?

are you saying nothing happens or are you saying they all become casualties and are lain down.

can you also provide specific quotes to back up your answers please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're seriously questioning that?

 

Not got the book to hand, to quote page number, but the function of Smoke Launchers comes to mind. I'm sure there's something in one of the FAQs as well. Somewhere. But I'm not gonna to traw through them to find a quote for you.

I'm seriously questioning your statement, yes. Unless there is something I've missed in the many times I've debated this very issue - the Rulebook never specifies Codex>Rulebook or Specific>General. It does seem logical that Codex>Rulebook, however this is just a conclusion many have reached by looking at how GW publishes and FAQs various rules interaction. It's equally logical to conclude that GW only cares that Specific>General. Either way, without a RAW quote you are interjecting your opinion/conclusion/belief into a RAW debate. You have to have some fact to hang this conclusion on or you have to allow that those who accept Specific>General and not Codex>Rulebook have an equally valid conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Smoke launchers section of the BRB.

 

becuase WBB covers removing casualties only..

 

That's the issue here I feel. WWB doesn't just cover that. It also explains how the new type of 'debry' is managed in game. Maybe that sohuld have been seperated out and listed elsewhere, but it's not. it's contained within the WWB rules, which also cover removing casualties.

 

Heres na question.. if i beat a unit of necrons and 'sweep' them.. what happens to them?

are you saying nothing happens or are you saying they all become casualties and are lain down.

can you also provide specific quotes to back up your answers please

 

OK, assuming that you;

 

Have beaten and sucessfully SA a unit of Necrons in CC, and assuming there are 'debry' Necrons contained in that unit.

 

What happens is;

 

1: The 'living' Necrons that are swept are removed from play. Not as a casualty, no WBB, just removed. As per the SA rules.

2: The 'debry' Necrons remain where they are (On thier sides), as they are ignored entirely. As per the debry section of the WBB rules.

3: Next Necron Turn, the 'debry' follow all the normla WBB rules to see if they remain, or are removed as a casualty as usual.

 

Do you really want C&Ped book quotes to back up those three steps? If you do, It'll have to wait till I can borrow my mates Necron codex.

 

removing casualties is not the same as removing models from play..

 

I have never thought, nor posted otherwise about this. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dswanick, I hope this helps with the Codex > BRB question. (Taken from the OI forum)

 

GW has made it mostly clear that unless a codex's FAQ says otherwise, we should use the rules in our codex. There are at least three statements concerning Codex vs. Rulebook variations in rules in the BBB. The first, concerning smoke launchers on p. 62 reads, "As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence." Later, in the section on Universal Special Rules (p. 74) it states that "... if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codes takes precedence ..." Finally, on p. 289 concerning army lists, the support continues: "in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

 

Comments to the effect that Codex Trumps Rulebook continue in at least one FAQ. The comment about dedicated transports in the BBB Oct, 2008 FAQ p. 4 states that rules in a codex should be followed: "... if a Codex clearly says that dedicated transports can only be used during the game by the unit that bought them, that overrules the general rule in the rulebook, as normal. " The final emphasis is mine.

 

These statements all imply that the rules in a codex are the standard ruleset for its army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. lets take the 'debris' argument and dissect it (again)

 

WE'LL BE BACK - Necrons have a remarkable ability to self-repair even the most horrendous damage. Any Necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the table top and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged. Damaged Necrons ignore the normal coherency rules and cannot be attacked in any way - they are seen as just more battlefield debris.

 

first off it doesnt say they are debris, just they are seen as debris.. theres no rule or mechanic for 'debris'.. its just there for flavour.

 

secondaly the only point of rules in this passage shows that a necron has to be removed as a casualty in order to use WBB. the mechanic for what happens to damaged necrons is as follows:

1: necrons ingnore normal coherancy rules

2: cannot be attacked in any way

 

there is nothing here that states that downed necrons are immune to events/situations other than attacks.. a sweeping advance is not an attack.

there is also the point about ignoring coherancy, which shows they downed necrons are still treated as being part of the parent unit.

 

basically the argument comes down to this..

Sweeping advance removes the unit from play, downed necrons are not permitted to leave the parent unit until after a successful WBB roll (joins nearest unit) and are therefore removed with the parent unit.

WBB cant be used to save against sweeping advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going by this;

 

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 only.

 

first off it doesnt say they are debris, just they are seen as debris.. theres no rule or mechanic for 'debris'.. its just there for flavour.

 

They are debris only. And the mechanic is that they are ignored for all game purposes. Which would be totally different to a mini on it's side with old School Bionics. Which could for example be an Inquisitor with a retinue who's still part of a unit. ;)

 

secondaly the only point of rules in this passage shows that a necron has to be removed as a casualty in order to use WBB. the mechanic for what happens to damaged necrons is as follows:

1: necrons ingnore normal coherancy rules

2: cannot be attacked in any way

 

And Measuring Ranges, self repair, and everything else. The are ignored for all normal game purposes.

 

there is nothing here that states that downed necrons are immune to events/situations other than attacks..

 

This is where I see "ignored for all normal game purposes" to included everything, not just attacks.

 

Sweeping advance removes the unit from play, downed necrons are not permitted to leave the parent unit until after a successful WBB roll (joins nearest unit)

 

No problem here in the slightest.

 

and are therefore removed with the parent unit.

 

This is where I disagree. Debry Necrons are ignored for all purposes and ignore the SA.

 

WBB cant be used to save against sweeping advance

 

For 'living' Necrons, no, it can't. Tha's totally correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going by this;

 

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 only.

 

so its all about the ignored for all normal game purposes.. yet it mentions unit coherancy as opposed to actually being part of a unit.. bit specific isnt it

yes i relaise it says and so on, but all these examples given are basic 'purposes'..

just becuase they ignore coherancy and cant be used for helping other necrons use WBB doesnt mean that:

 

a: they arent part of the parent unit and

b: they ignore SA

 

SA doesnt preclude 'debris' from being part of the unit, simply that it works on the unit.. yes two of the necrons may be debris, but it doesnt matter becuase SA removes the whole unit from the game.

your making a huge assumption by saying SA is a normal game purpose (in this context) especially considering the examples it gives..

 

basically the passage doesnt state they ignore SA, your simply making that assumption becuase the list it gives isnt exhaustive.. your then using this assumption to try and say that codex trumps rulebook..

its an a + b + c argument based on an assumption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. ;) And I was waiting for the 'normal' to be bought into it.

 

What defines normal game purpose, what's abnormal. ^_^

 

Personally, SA is a normal outcome to losing a CC. It's a normal part of the game, and debry necrons ignore it.

 

If SA isn't a 'normal' part of a 40K game, then sure, debry Necrons are effected by it.

 

basically the passage doesnt state they ignore SA, your simply making that assumption becuase the list it gives isnt exhaustive..

 

It's not an asusmption *becuase* the list isn't exhaustive. :D Now if the WBB rules contained listed exceptions, that would be different, but there are no exceptions listed to the "ignored for all normal game puposes" at all. So including SA to that list isn't an assumption, it's part of the default. ;)

 

your then using this assumption to try and say that codex trumps rulebook..

 

I've given reasoning for Codex > BRB, and it's got nothing to do with the Necron 'Dex. Rules in the BRB support the assertation that Codex > BRB. There's no counter support for BRB trumping Codex rules anywhere (as far as i'm aware). All the support officially listed is for Codex rules to trump main rulebook rules. Globally.

 

But it's time for bed now! Have a nice night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. ;) And I was waiting for the 'normal' to be bought into it.

 

What defines normal game purpose, what's abnormal. ^_^

 

Personally, SA is a normal outcome to losing a CC. It's a normal part of the game, and debry necrons ignore it.

 

If SA isn't a 'normal' part of a 40K game, then sure, debry Necrons are effected by it.

 

your reasoning can be used to counter your own argument too.. becuase the list isnt exhaustive we cant assume SA is covered, nor can we assume SA is a normal game purpose..

given the examples in place all we can assume is that the normal games purposes in this context are simple things like being able to move, measuring distances, not being able to fire and the like.. you know the basics as outlined by the BRB.

 

becuase your argument rests on your interpretation of this 'normal games purpose' and your assumption that SA is covered then it cant carry the same weight as the RAW BRB rules for sweeping advance which is that the unit is destroyed..

unless the codex can show it specifically counters SA then no the codex cannot trump rulebook in this case.. otherwise all your doing is substituting RAW with RAI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dswanick, I hope this helps with the Codex > BRB question. (Taken from the OI forum)

 

GW has made it mostly clear that unless a codex's FAQ says otherwise, we should use the rules in our codex. There are at least three statements concerning Codex vs. Rulebook variations in rules in the BBB. The first, concerning smoke launchers on p. 62 reads, "As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence." Later, in the section on Universal Special Rules (p. 74) it states that "... if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codes takes precedence ..." Finally, on p. 289 concerning army lists, the support continues: "in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence."

 

Comments to the effect that Codex Trumps Rulebook continue in at least one FAQ. The comment about dedicated transports in the BBB Oct, 2008 FAQ p. 4 states that rules in a codex should be followed: "... if a Codex clearly says that dedicated transports can only be used during the game by the unit that bought them, that overrules the general rule in the rulebook, as normal. " The final emphasis is mine.

 

These statements all imply that the rules in a codex are the standard ruleset for its army.

I am unfamiliar with your reference to an "OI forum". Is this some official Games Workshop designers discussion forum? If not, I would question their authority in making such statements and yours in taking them as fact.

I've given reasoning for Codex > BRB, and it's got nothing to do with the Necron 'Dex. Rules in the BRB support the assertation that Codex > BRB. There's no counter support for BRB trumping Codex rules anywhere (as far as i'm aware). All the support officially listed is for Codex rules to trump main rulebook rules. Globally.

 

But it's time for bed now! Have a nice night!

Notice I never argued Rulebook > Codex. I simply suggested that Specific > General, regardless of source. So if there is a BRB rule for some specific situation which is not equally specifically handled by a rule in the Codex, then by the Specific > General line of reasoning the BRB would overrule the Codex in that specific circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, dswanick, it doesn't matter where Gentlemanloser got the quote, it does show the places in the BRB where it tells us that the Codexes 'take precedence'.

He is missing the point though , in each of these places it is where the Codex and the BRB are in conflict.

Wargear or USRs with the same name but different rules.

Places where the specific trumps the general.

There is no conflict here though.

WWB saves models that have suffered a casualty, SA removes units.

 

Almost all of us agree that SA will remove the standing models of the unit from play , that WWB will not save them.

The only real debate is how we treat the downed members of that unit.

Some wish to treat them in all ways as debris, but there are cases , interactions with the Monoliths teleport, and the FAQ that moves the downed models with their parent unit shows that it is not always treated as debris and are still part of the unit.

If they were not part of the unit they would be disallowed from teleporting though the Monolith.

Since units effected by SA cannot be saved by 'special rules' unless otherwise specified.

Which means if the special rule does not make specific mention of SA then it does not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the BRB states, if USRs, wargear, or Army list entries in the BRB differ from those respective entries printed in the codexes, for those cases the codex version of the conflicting entry under the same name takes precedence.

 

There is no catchall Codex > Rulebook for whatever other circumstances, actual logic and english comprehension applies instead; Specifically written rules provide their specific variations to the rules of general play. These are often found in Codexes, but not always.

 

Sweeping Advance is a very specific rule; it tells you to remove the unit, and that nothing can prevent the unit being removed by a sweeping advance unless it specifically mentions it's not removed when it falls victim to a sweeping advance. Necron units don't have a rule that specifically mentions this ("and so on" is far from good enough) : therefore they are removed by sweeping advance. It's that straightforward, and that's how rules work.

 

The unit distinction is important: It doesn't matter what the individual models in that unit are doing, if they are debris, or falling back, or what. Sweeping advance says the unit is gone. Removing part of a unit will not suffice when you have to remove 'the' unit.

 

We know 'debris Necrons' can be teleported as part of a unit.

We know they can fall back as part of a unit.

There is no sound counter-argument as to why they aren't swept as part of a unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha I'm not too eloquent, have just played Necrons and therefore bounced around Necron related forums a long time :D

 

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.

 

1) To clarify; What you have to counter is the 'anti-WBB' position 'that to be a rule that fulfills the specific exception requirement to not be removed when subject to sweeping advance, such a rule must explicitly state that the unit it applies to is not removed by sweeping advance' (and presumably also detail what alternately happens instead of being destroyed so the game doesn't break by being an unclosed rule/logic loop: they continue to fight normally, are placed into reserve, whatever)'.

 

ATSKNF merely provides a good illustration of such a rule. The 'Anti-WBB position' won't be satisfied with "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 only." as a rule that is specific enough to prevent a unit being caught in a sweeping advance

a.) It is a ruling for models, not units. Even though a whole unit may consist of damaged Necrons entirely - we're not told what to do with 'mixed' situations such as that, unlike say, Blood Angels and servitors. Which leads to...

b.) It's just simply not specific enough. It doesn't say damaged Necrons are ignored by sweeping advance. It doesn't tell us what to do with damaged Necrons even if they were to ignore a sweeping advance, or then how to treat 'mixed units'.

 

 

2). Everyone playing this game should know what a game model is.

3). Unit's consist of groupings of 1 or more game models, can get somewhat messy with IC rules, vehicles, and Force organisation chart trickery that lets you take multiple units per choice, but everyone should understand the idea of a unit of ten Necron Warriors. I'm sure the BGB defines it well enough.

4). Again defined in the BGB - dictionary definitions need not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no catchall Codex > Rulebook for whatever other circumstances, actual logic and english comprehension applies instead; Specifically written rules provide their specific variations to the rules of general play. These are often found in Codexes, but not always.

 

The catchall would be the 'as normal' in those quotes. If Codex > Rulebook only applied to those specific instances listed, the 'as normal' is redundant. Also

Codex > Rulebook has printed support, for Rulebook > Codex there's no printed support I know of.

 

I'd be happy to be corrected, would provide fuel for an interesting discussion! :D

 

We know 'debris Necrons' can be teleported as part of a unit.

We know they can fall back as part of a unit.

There is no sound counter-argument as to why they aren't swept as part of a unit.

 

Some wish to treat them in all ways as debris, but there are cases , interactions with the Monoliths teleport, and the FAQ that moves the downed models with their parent unit shows that it is not always treated as debris and are still part of the unit.

 

This is fine, as it's an in Codex rule amending another in Codex Rule.

 

Nothing here projects any problems on the 'debry' rules standing versus SA.

 

I am unfamiliar with your reference to an "OI forum".

 

Ordo Inquisition here on the B&C. ;)

 

Notice I never argued Rulebook > Codex. I simply suggested that Specific > General, regardless of source. So if there is a BRB rule for some specific situation which is not equally specifically handled by a rule in the Codex, then by the Specific > General line of reasoning the BRB would overrule the Codex in that specific circumstance.

 

There is no support for the BRB overrulling Codex anywhere I can find. It's all for the other way round. Although as above, I'd be interested to be shown otherwise!

 

your reasoning can be used to counter your own argument too.. becuase the list isnt exhaustive we cant assume SA is covered, nor can we assume SA is a normal game purpose..

given the examples in place all we can assume is that the normal games purposes in this context are simple things like being able to move, measuring distances, not being able to fire and the like.. you know the basics as outlined by the BRB.

 

Not being able to fire is as normal as a sweeping advance after losing CC. There's no assumption about including things in that list, as there's no listed exceptions to it. It's a global list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence.' in the context of the section it's lifted from is referring to situations where there is a rule entry in both sources under an identical heading, no? (Rulebook at a friends, can't check the BRB section that quote is lifted from). It's concerning smoke launchers, Black Templars have different 'smoke launchers' and all that.

 

Context is king, selective quoting bad ;)

 

There is support for identical USRs, unit entires, and wargear deferring to codex versions over rulebook versions, but that's all there is. There's no suffocating 'Rulebook > Codex' or 'Codex > Rulebook' truism bigger than that.

 

There is no WBB rule in both the Necron Codex and BRB just as there is no Sweeping Advance rule in both either, so no 'trumping' truism gets applied here. It's the specific > general truism instead and we have to break down the rules and how they interact in a sort of logical 'order of operations'.

 

Also to answer your query thade, the codex states Necrons fall back because it's 'logical' to do so in the face of overwhelming melee force, a bit like Space Marines aren't fearless either, even though 'They shall know no fear'. 'Fearless' in this game is more like either mindless, or just so bloodthirsty or fanatical you just don't care at all about self-preservation or whether it would be smarter to break off and regroup.

 

A pity they're so slow that all their fall back attempts don't tend to work out so well :D (I suppose it's fluffy if we imagine the whole unit 'phases out' though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The catchall would be the 'as normal' in those quotes. If Codex > Rulebook only applied to those specific instances listed, the 'as normal' is redundant. Also

Codex > Rulebook has printed support, for Rulebook > Codex there's no printed support I know of.

The Codex does take presendence in cases where there is a conflict, ie wargear and USRs with the same name but different rules.

When there is no conflict we must follow the general rules.

 

This is fine, as it's an in Codex rule amending another in Codex Rule.

Which it does,

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."

 

Nothing here projects any problems on the 'debry' rules standing versus SA.

Except what I just quoted, there is clear rules from both the Necron Codex and their FAQ that the downed models are part of the parent unit.

Oh and would you please stop misspelling debris.

 

There is no support for the BRB overrulling Codex anywhere I can find. It's all for the other way round. Although as above, I'd be interested to be shown otherwise!

Unless there is a conflict we still have to follow the rules in the BRB.

You have not shown a conflict, only a statement "codex>BRB!"

Again, WWB is a rule that effects models.

Sweeping Advance effects Units.

The codex can not trump because A. there is no conflict and B. It is a special rule that does not specificly mention SA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am unfamiliar with your reference to an "OI forum".

Ordo Inquisition here on the B&C. :P

So you're using the proclamations of this forum of fans as authoritative statements of RAW and proof that what is said on this forum about Sweeping Advance is wrong? Care to doublecheck that logic before continuing?

 

Notice I never argued Rulebook > Codex. I simply suggested that Specific > General, regardless of source. So if there is a BRB rule for some specific situation which is not equally specifically handled by a rule in the Codex, then by the Specific > General line of reasoning the BRB would overrule the Codex in that specific circumstance.

There is no support for the BRB overrulling Codex anywhere I can find. It's all for the other way round. Although as above, I'd be interested to be shown otherwise!

There is no catchall Codex > Rulebook for whatever other circumstances, actual logic and english comprehension applies instead; Specifically written rules provide their specific variations to the rules of general play. These are often found in Codexes, but not always.

Codex > Rulebook has printed support, for Rulebook > Codex there's no printed support I know of.

Again you mischaracterise the count-argument. Is this because you can't overcome it? No one is arguing Rulebook > Codex, or no Codex would work, period. Some people are arguing Specific > General, regardless of where the rule is written. So you understand Specific > General? There is no GW published authoritztive proof of Codex > Rulebook OR Specific > Genereal. These are both conclusions players have reached after studying the rules interaction GW HAS published as well as the FAQs interpreting how one rule overrides another. Never has anyone with authority stated that the method they use is C > R or G > S. Now are you going to try and rebut the General > Specific logic, or are you going to continue with your Rulebook > Codex strawman?

 

We know 'debris Necrons' can be teleported as part of a unit.

We know they can fall back as part of a unit.

There is no sound counter-argument as to why they aren't swept as part of a unit.

Some wish to treat them in all ways as debris, but there are cases , interactions with the Monoliths teleport, and the FAQ that moves the downed models with their parent unit shows that it is not always treated as debris and are still part of the unit.

This is fine, as it's an in Codex rule amending another in Codex Rule.

Nothing here projects any problems on the 'debry' rules standing versus SA.

Except that this could be used to show that Specific > General. Generally the rulebook says to remove casualties. Specifically the Codex says to leave the casualties on and ignore them for all game purposes. Even more specifically, the codex Monolith Teleportation rule says to NOT ignore them and move them when you move the unit. The WBB "ignore them" rule doesn't overrule the Monoliths more specific "teleport them with the unit", nor could it unless it said something to the effect "downed Necrons awaiting their WBB roll are ignored for all normal game purposes including being teleported by a Necron Monolith.

Equally: Specifically the Codex says to leave the casualties on and ignore them for all game purposes. Even more specifically, the rulebook "Sweeping Advance" rule says to remove the unit, regardless of special rules. The WBB "ignore them" rule doesn't overrule the rulebooks more specific "units caught by sweeping advance are removed", nor could it unless it said something to the effect "downed Necrons awaiting their WBB roll are ignored for all normal game purposes including Sweeping Advance. Which leads me to this:

your reasoning can be used to counter your own argument too.. becuase the list isnt exhaustive we cant assume SA is covered, nor can we assume SA is a normal game purpose..

given the examples in place all we can assume is that the normal games purposes in this context are simple things like being able to move, measuring distances, not being able to fire and the like.. you know the basics as outlined by the BRB.

Not being able to fire is as normal as a sweeping advance after losing CC. There's no assumption about including things in that list, as there's no listed exceptions to it. It's a global list.

This is your assumption. What constitutes a "normal" round of close combat? Well, that depends a bit on your interpretation. Some people in this thread are arguing from the position that a "normal" close combat consists of models in base contact striking their opponent with their number of Attacks using their array of Close Combat weapons. as every turn of close combat doesn't necessarily include a Charge move and the resultant bonus Attack from charging then this wouldn't be considered "normal" close combat rules, but rather a special circumstance outside of the "normal" part of the Assault Phase. You, yourself, indicate in your response that you see Sweeping Advance as conditional - therefore unless you have some GW published text which states that Sweeping Advance is "normal" you must at least acknowledge that the others may have a valid, logical argument. And if they do then their interpretation must at least be considered and rebutted using something more than your interpretation of the same RAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're using the proclamations of this forum of fans as authoritative statements of RAW and proof that what is said on this forum about Sweeping Advance is wrong? Care to doublecheck that logic before continuing?

 

LoL.

 

The Book Quotes are there, as are page numbers...

 

I'm out of this discussion though, I have no desire to debate what constitiutes 'normal' in a game of 40K and what doesn't, nor 'specific versus general'.

 

Let's hope this becomes a non issue wih the new Necron Dex. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.