Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not interested in starting another long war of whether or not they do or do not take damage. I know some think it is clear, while many think it is not. I seriously am just interested in what the Dakka Dakka community thinks about the question from a data perspective. I think I have covered the only real options, but if not please let me know. Thanks for taking the time to cast your vote!

There are three ways of looking at it. I'm not saying any one is correct, nor how it should be played, just the three ways I can see this working.

1. Going in reserves happens in place of the whole crash and burn rule, and as such they take no damage.
2. The damage happens before the disembark portion that is replaced, as such they would not be on the table and cannot roll for RP/EL.
3. Since they technically never disembark (although they are treated as disembarking), they take the hits and are placed on the table. Since they are on the table, they can roll RP/EL.

I believe this sums up the question?

Happyjew wrote:
There are three ways of looking at it. I'm not saying any one is correct, nor how it should be played, just the three ways I can see this working.

1. Going in reserves happens in place of the whole crash and burn rule, and as such they take no damage.
2. The damage happens before the disembark portion that is replaced, as such they would not be on the table and cannot roll for RP/EL.
3. Since they technically never disembark (although they are treated as disembarking), they take the hits and are placed on the table. Since they are on the table, they can roll RP/EL.

I believe this sums up the question?

Just, fyi, RP does not require models to be on the board for their effects to take place. Even if in reserve, they are allowed to roll for RP. EL "might" be a point of contention but an argument could easily be made to show that it is also allowed.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
There are three ways of looking at it. I'm not saying any one is correct, nor how it should be played, just the three ways I can see this working.

1. Going in reserves happens in place of the whole crash and burn rule, and as such they take no damage.
2. The damage happens before the disembark portion that is replaced, as such they would not be on the table and cannot roll for RP/EL.
3. Since they technically never disembark (although they are treated as disembarking), they take the hits and are placed on the table. Since they are on the table, they can roll RP/EL.

I believe this sums up the question?

Just, fyi, RP does not require models to be on the board for their effects to take place. Even if in reserve, they are allowed to roll for RP. EL "might" be a point of contention but an argument could easily be made to show that it is also allowed.

Apologies, did not realize that RP had a clause allowing it to be used off the table.
More specifically, how do you place a model in coherency with a unit that is not on the table?

Happyjew wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
There are three ways of looking at it. I'm not saying any one is correct, nor how it should be played, just the three ways I can see this working.

1. Going in reserves happens in place of the whole crash and burn rule, and as such they take no damage.
2. The damage happens before the disembark portion that is replaced, as such they would not be on the table and cannot roll for RP/EL.
3. Since they technically never disembark (although they are treated as disembarking), they take the hits and are placed on the table. Since they are on the table, they can roll RP/EL.

I believe this sums up the question?

Just, fyi, RP does not require models to be on the board for their effects to take place. Even if in reserve, they are allowed to roll for RP. EL "might" be a point of contention but an argument could easily be made to show that it is also allowed.

Apologies, did not realize that RP had a clause allowing it to be used off the table.
More specifically, how do you place a model in coherency with a unit that is not on the table?

If they're not in coherency when in reserves then how could you ever move with them in any other way other than to move into coherency?

Really I could just ask the converse of your question, how could they ever not be in coherency in reserve?

Well since we're allowed to measure models that are off the table, whats to stop my units in reserve from shooting your units in reserve (assuming range and LOS of course)?

I'm going to start shooting from reserve with Manticores, after I make sure they're placed high up on my display board.

Thanks guys, I'm getting some great feedback

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/12/10/rules-question-do-units-in-night-scythes-take-damage-when-the-vehicle-is-destroyed/

Hey, glad to see this poll! It is a weird one, isn't it? By RAW I read it as quite clear that they do take the damage, but by RAI it seems quite clear that they would not.

We have to make a ruling for our FAQ, so this discussion is really appreciated.

 Reecius wrote:
Hey, glad to see this poll! It is a weird one, isn't it? By RAW I read it as quite clear that they do take the damage, but by RAI it seems quite clear that they would not.

We have to make a ruling for our FAQ, so this discussion is really appreciated.

Yep i agree with this ... I'd Like to back up the RAI with a little of the fluff.

Necron Codex, Page 51, Third Paragraph wrote:Unlike the armoured carriers employed by other races, the Night Scythe does not have a troop compartment as such. Instead, it deploys troops by means of a captive wormhole whose far end is anchored on a distant Tomb World. Though this is less flexible than the Monolith's eternity gate, it does allow the Night Scythe to mimic the battlefield role of a more conventional transport vehicle without jeopardising the existence of it assigned squad. If the Night Scythe is destroyed, its payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established. Though this invariably prevents the squad from taking part in the immediate battle, this is preferable to them being destroyed outright as they can join the campaign's later stages.

Fluff shouldn't be used to back any argument regarding rules, whether it be RAW or RAI.

Fluff wise space marines never miss, take shots to the face like its cool, and kill C'tan with powerswords...

IamCaboose wrote:
Fluff shouldn't be used to back any argument regarding rules, whether it be RAW or RAI.

Fluff wise space marines never miss, take shots to the face like its cool, and kill C'tan with powerswords...

Well its just odd that the fluff would specifically state that the nightscythes are designed to protect it's passengers better that other flyers but then in the game the nightscythes put the crons at more risk than a regular flyer due to not getting RP.

Just seems clear that the intended point is for them to just go back into reserves without taking the hits.

Punisher wrote:

IamCaboose wrote:
Fluff shouldn't be used to back any argument regarding rules, whether it be RAW or RAI.

Fluff wise space marines never miss, take shots to the face like its cool, and kill C'tan with powerswords...

Well its just odd that the fluff would specifically state that the nightscythes are designed to protect it's passengers better that other flyers but then in the game the nightscythes put the crons at more risk than a regular flyer due to not getting RP.

Just seems clear that the intended point is for them to just go back into reserves without taking the hits.

Well you can't say it puts them at more of a risk than other fliers...It puts them at exactly the same risk. And it's hard to say whats intended. Sure the book was written with 6th in mind, but it's still a 5th edition codex.

IamCaboose wrote:

Well you can't say it puts them at more of a risk than other fliers...It puts them at exactly the same risk. And it's hard to say whats intended. Sure the book was written with 6th in mind, but it's still a 5th edition codex.

Well it sure does put the crons at more risk, if they were to for instance just use another races flyer then when it crashes they can still make their RP rolls whereas if they crash in their own "protected" transport they don't get to benefit from their own special rule.

Punisher wrote:

IamCaboose wrote:

Well you can't say it puts them at more of a risk than other fliers...It puts them at exactly the same risk. And it's hard to say whats intended. Sure the book was written with 6th in mind, but it's still a 5th edition codex.

Well it sure does put the crons at more risk, if they were to for instance just use another races flyer then when it crashes they can still make their RP rolls whereas if they crash in their own "protected" transport they don't get to benefit from their own special rule.

That argument makes little sense seeing as how they'll never be in another races flyer. They're in no more danger of dying in night scythes than IG vets are in vendettas.

IamCaboose wrote:

That argument makes little sense seeing as how they'll never be in another races flyer. They're in no more danger of dying in night scythes than IG vets are in vendettas.

"Unlike the armoured carriers employed by other races, the Night Scythe does not have a troop compartment as such. Instead, it deploys troops by means of a captive wormhole whose far end is anchored on a distant Tomb World. Though this is less flexible than the Monolith's eternity gate, it does allow the Night Scythe to mimic the battlefield role of a more conventional transport vehicle without jeopardising the existence of it assigned squad."

Direct quote from the necron codex. All I was saying before was that if the way you play is that the crons take the hits and then don't get RP(which is a common way people play as seen in the poll results) then the crons are more vulnerable in the nightscythe than say a vendetta(yes I know they can never be in one, just for arguments sake) even though this goes directly against what is stated in the units entry in the codex (where they are supposed to be safer than another races armoured carrier) since they don't get the RP rolls in the scythe but would have if they were in the vendetta and it crashed. This is just an oddly written rule which results in RAW =/= RAI.

IamCaboose wrote:
Fluff shouldn't be used to back any argument regarding rules, whether it be RAW or RAI.

Fluff wise space marines never miss, take shots to the face like its cool, and kill C'tan with powerswords...

Space marines don't Miss, They can take shots to the face and say this is cool and they most definitely can kill C'tan with a powersword. It all your fault for rolling badly ... do better.

Still not denying RAW those models take a str 10 hit and get placed in reserve. Its just a little harsh since both the rules and fluff seem to think the models safely placed into reserve to make their own way on later.

IamCaboose wrote:
Fluff shouldn't be used to back any argument regarding rules, whether it be RAW or RAI.

Fluff wise space marines never miss, take shots to the face like its cool, and kill C'tan with powerswords...

You missed the mark by a mile. Every game designer I ever spoke said the same thing - the rules reflect the background. Look how many answers in their 6th edition FAQs were not RAW. Keep an open mind.

I hope that GW will address this soon. They need to.

Has anyone here bothered reading the Ge FAQ?

GW seems to already re-word the rules entry in their faq:

Page 51 – Night Scythes, Access Points.
Change to “1 (the base of the model)”.

1) DOES THIS MEAN THE WORMHOLE ENTRY UNDER ACCESS POINT DELETES? READ FURTHER

Page 51 – Night Scythes.
Add the following special rule:
“Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase
embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark before or after
the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so
long as the vehicle has not moved more than 36″. If the Night
Scythe moves more than 24″ in the same turn, the disembarking
unit can only fire Snap Shots.”

The access point is changed to one sentence and instead of a wormhole it now has a Invasion Beam? This one sounds like they tried to remove the fluff.

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
The access point is changed to one sentence and instead of a wormhole it now has a Invasion Beam? This one sounds like they tried to remove the fluff.

And they could well be doing just that. In 5th the NS was a costly and somewhat underwhelming skimmer transport, in 6th it became a cheap and superexcellent flyer transport.

Fluff aside, the guys that bought it can disembark using the Invasion Beam if they start the move phase embarked upon the NS. If someone claims they aren't there then how can they disembark?

edit: and let's not forget edition changes. The only rules-based reason the necrons avoided the explosion in 5th is that it was after the passengers were disembarked. Now it's before. The Eldar Banshees haven't had their masks work against charging into terrain since 5th came out - it hasn't conferred a bonus on the charged opponents since 4th. Sometimes things change and we have to live with it.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Defeatmyarmy wrote:
The access point is changed to one sentence and instead of a wormhole it now has a Invasion Beam? This one sounds like they tried to remove the fluff.

And they could well be doing just that. In 5th the NS was a costly and somewhat underwhelming skimmer transport, in 6th it became a cheap and superexcellent flyer transport.

Fluff aside, the guys that bought it can disembark using the Invasion Beam if they start the move phase embarked upon the NS. If someone claims they aren't there then how can they disembark?

They used to disembark using a wormhole teleporter described in the original access point rules. This wording was changed in the FAQ to that one sentence on access points. They also added the rules for invasion beam, the disembark rule is under transports, unchanged. It says that the unit embarked may not disembark but enters reserve instead AFTER the vehicle is destroyed.

The facts:

The vehicle blows up,simultaneously, necrons inside take damage, then the vehicle rule occurs:
"if the night scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve(when they arrive they cannot deep strike." I

In the rule book It says for morale when to test:
"Casualties: a unit losing 25% or more of its current models during a single movement or shooting phase must take a morale check at the end of that phase.".

If they lose 25% take a morale. If they fail they're off the board so already destroyed.

Pinning from a transport:
I'm getting lazy but read it. Pin checks are after disembarking, since they enter reserve instead they will NEVER be disembarking so no pin check. Ever.

The loophole consists of several things:

Ever-living: what happens if they live? It takes place at the end of each phase, and say they make their save....the vehicle is destroyed, they die from the explosion.

1) are they reanimated within 3" of the crash?
2 ) are they put back in reserve if reanimated

The problem is that they are part of the unit, so technically The counter is where they died: where the vehicle exploded. Do they enter reserve with their unit, however are forcefully seperated. I would say they resurrect where tw flyer died.

Repair protocols, however requires the unit be in coherency. Since RP takes place after the unit is put in reserve, no rp is ever made.

Typing my logic from a s****** iPhone

The addition of invasion beam just lets the Night Scythe Work as a transport without hover (To be frank when i see it used on a busy map chances are it will fly off the board before it can loop round to drop its unit off in the right location.

Facts; the rules as written (even without the change) are that you "crash and burn" then get placed in reserve. RAI I don't think its meant to work that way for the simple reason, that the models have to go into reserve. This will screw up most game plans.

That is a very large penalty when you compere it with the only other flying transport the Valkyrie which is only a little more expensive, can hover, comes with 3 TL-Lascannons (can also have 2 heavy bolters strapped on very cheaply) ... oh and it has AV12

Except you are talking about the vendetta, which is 40% more expensive the way you suggest to equip it and has to be taken in squadrons in order to get >3 on the table.

Having recently read the 40k novel "Hammer and Anvil", even the fluff supports the units taking the hit.
There the Sisters of Battle destroyed a Nightscythe, the Necrons waiting to come through were also destroyed as the explosion came through the portal.

Right.

jms40k wrote:
Except you are talking about the vendetta, which is 40% more expensive the way you suggest to equip it and has to be taken in squadrons in order to get >3 on the table.

My mistake your right Vendetta (or the Valkyrie with lascannons ) 30% with the option to take H.Bolters if you have spare points ... Soon as you play 2000pts you can take 6, which is more then enough. Doesn't matter how you look at it The Vendetta is more massively more effective (more then 40%); It is hands down the best anti-flyer unit and a damn good tank hunter.

 grendel083 wrote:
Having recently read the 40k novel "Hammer and Anvil", even the fluff supports the units taking the hit.
There the Sisters of Battle destroyed a Nightscythe, the Necrons waiting to come through were also destroyed as the explosion came through the portal.

Haven't read that but it's even more reason, that i would like to see GW gaming view on this.

Has anyone tried emailing GW and asking them?

i would but i dont know whatthe email address is.

 Praxiss wrote:
Has anyone tried emailing GW and asking them?

i would but i dont know whatthe email address is.

I e-mailed their FAQ address and received nothing more than a generic reply. We received your message, blah blah blah. Basically if they get asked enough they'll put it in the FAQ from what I gather.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

IMHO they should not take damage, they should merely be placed in reserves, as that is how they were originally intended to work, when designed. BUT unfortunately, the rules do not support this as of yet. Now obviously the Night Scythe has been a vehicle in flux since the 6th ed rulebook dropped. They have had to faq it to restore the portals functionality (being able to embark), not to mention fix the wording to allow disembarking to begin with. Perhaps this is another item on the long list of GW over sights and something which will be corrected. Until then it is really the only thing limiting Cron Air lists (of which I have one) unless you're playing FW IG.

PS. I'm loving the dialogue folks, also the Poll is fantastically interesting as at first the YES answers had tons more votes, like 2 :1, but now as time has passed and the Poll stays up we're seeing more of a leveling. At the time of this posting it is exactly 50% split! OUT OF 148 votes!!!

I am extremely interested on how people have ruled this at tourneys, any comments?

At ours, they take the hits and don't get RP.