17135
Post by: headrattle
This one is pretty easy.
You have Immortals on a Night Scythe and the Night Scythe cannot hover. So, if it wrecks or explodes (page 81 of the new book) do all of the embarked models suffer a strength 10 hit with no armor saves? Page 51 of the Necron book only states that "if the Night Scythe is destroyed the unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (when they arrive they cannon deep strike)."
Doesn't seem to make sense, but the FAQ adds the "Invasion Beams" which allows it to dump the unit even though it has moved.
I would say they take a strength 10 hit. Sucks, but it means that I will be dumping my Immortals much faster then before.
33776
Post by: bagtagger
they don't take the hits - remember that if a night scythe wrecks the unit goes into reserves instead
9514
Post by: Bigdobbo
They are not embarked on the night scythe... Just using a portal mounted on the flyer
17135
Post by: headrattle
Only if it disembarks. RAW says that the unit takes the hits before that unit disembarks.
Right?
60303
Post by: dave_vegeta101
hmmm its a mad one.... i think the rule needed re-wording in the FAQ.
I'd say the unit enters reserve, because i would treat 'destroyed' as either becoming wrecked due to no hull points or exploding due to cannon fire.
i think in t'old 5th edition 'destroyed' was on vehicle damage table as both wrecked & explodes this is probably where the confusion has come from...
hope this clears some stuff up for you
4884
Post by: Therion
As a Necron player I'm afraid this is pretty cut and dry. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the damage for exploding vehicle or a crashing and burning flyer is related to the models disembarking around the vehicle. They take damage because they are embarked on the transport when it gets blown up. The background material tells us that the passengers are actually on a far away Tomb World or Tomb Ship awaiting teleportation, but RAI does not matter. In game terms they are embarked on the transport.
If it's any consolation this is one of those cases where the Necrons might get a FAQ ruling this in their favour within the next year or two. Untill then, they take the damage like everyone else.
17135
Post by: headrattle
Yeah. My Immortals will be zooming onto the board, getting out ASAP. Not a big deal, but really nerfs the idea of the embarked units just coming in from my Monolith if the Sythe was wrecked. Which means one less reason to have the Monolith.
33776
Post by: bagtagger
Remember that the Scythe can go 36" and disembark them so you come out of reserves and zoom up then you are already where your guys want to be so just disembark those lychguard right there and now your opponent has to deal with them.
4884
Post by: Therion
Exactly. Since you can disembark so far up the board right after you entered play there really aren't many scenarios where your Night Scythes get shot with passengers on board. The lone Quad Gun with interceptor might be able to do it though.
5841
Post by: Bylak
headrattle wrote:Yeah. My Immortals will be zooming onto the board, getting out ASAP. Not a big deal, but really nerfs the idea of the embarked units just coming in from my Monolith if the Sythe was wrecked. Which means one less reason to have the Monolith.
I still kind of like the idea of having a Monolith to pull units out of reserve in case a Night Scythe does get shot down before unloading. You're not always going to have situations where you want to unload your units as soon as the Scythes hit the board.
17135
Post by: headrattle
Bylak wrote:headrattle wrote:Yeah. My Immortals will be zooming onto the board, getting out ASAP. Not a big deal, but really nerfs the idea of the embarked units just coming in from my Monolith if the Sythe was wrecked. Which means one less reason to have the Monolith.
I still kind of like the idea of having a Monolith to pull units out of reserve in case a Night Scythe does get shot down before unloading. You're not always going to have situations where you want to unload your units as soon as the Scythes hit the board.
I love the idea of the Monolith pulling a unit out of reserve when its Night Scythe explodes, however, The rule is the rule. It just makes that rule much less effective. Hopefully there will be a FAQ of some sort.
18312
Post by: Lacross
Wait a sec... Night scythes can carry immortals?
I thought it was only jump infantry and jet bikes?
50990
Post by: ShadarLogoth
I kind of see Therion's point here...but man, it seems like the whole reason they gave the Scythes that special rule in the first place was specifically to shield them from the S10 exploding hits? I mean, so they take the exploding hits and then mysteriously teleport off the board so they can walk on? Even if RAW that is technically true, rationally I don't think anyone thinks that is what was intended. Either way, I definitely agree that it will be cleared up with a FAQ eventually.
57035
Post by: jms40k
Lacross wrote:Wait a sec... Night scythes can carry immortals?
I thought it was only jump infantry and jet bikes?
They are a DT for almost everything that can take one in the necron 'dex 
55004
Post by: matroskeen
Lacross wrote:Wait a sec... Night scythes can carry immortals?
I thought it was only jump infantry and jet bikes?
Sorry for the stupid question, but how can a unit that cannot select the scythe as a dedicated transport embark on it? It is always in a zoom mode, which doesn't allow embarking.
5841
Post by: Bylak
ShadarLogoth wrote:I kind of see Therion's point here...but man, it seems like the whole reason they gave the Scythes that special rule in the first place was specifically to shield them from the S10 exploding hits? I mean, so they take the exploding hits and then mysteriously teleport off the board so they can walk on? Even if RAW that is technically true, rationally I don't think anyone thinks that is what was intended. Either way, I definitely agree that it will be cleared up with a FAQ eventually.
Wait, hasn't everyone in the thread responded that the exact opposite happens if the Scythe goes down (they don't take the hits cause they're not technically in the Scythe)?
headrattle wrote:I love the idea of the Monolith pulling a unit out of reserve when its Night Scythe explodes, however, The rule is the rule. It just makes that rule much less effective. Hopefully there will be a FAQ of some sort.
Okay so clearly I'm not awake this morning because I don't understand what's going on in this thread at all anymore, lol. The Monolith can pull units out of Reserve. Units that were being transported by a Night Scythe go into Reserve when the Night Scythe explodes, they just can't Deep Strike. Thus the unit that is now in Reserve can "disembark" from the Dimensional Corridor on a Monolith because it isn't a Deep Strike. I'm not sure what you're referring to, unless it's in regard to the unit in a Night Scythe potentially taking the S10 hit.
43471
Post by: fireinthahole
The necron player i know justifys not taking the damage because they are not described as being within the flier. unless there is somewhere that says that embarked units are considered to be within the vehicle this explanation seems valid. the rule clearly states that only models within the transport take the hit:"If the flier is also a transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed." Key word, "within".
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Fluff wise they are not in the Scythe. Rules wise they are. They take the hits.
They're standing at a portal, waiting to step through. Feedback caused by the crash surges through the portal, causing a small explosion. The leftover Necrons are ordered through a different portal and materialize at the board edge.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
They are still passengers, as otherwise they cannot use the invasion beam.
If you embark, you are a passenger,
Passengers take damage from explosions.
You must be embarked to Invasion Beam.
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
SO... my flyer crashes and burns and my "not there" crons have to take a hit and possibly die? Since they can be hit; do they get RP rolls as well? (I know youre gonna say NO)
If the damage gets to them, and then they reserve; wouldnt it stand to reason that they get RP too?
I'm on the side of it not hurting them.
45407
Post by: Kiredor
By RAW it does hurt them.
They take a S10 hit with no armour saves allowed, as they are embarked.
If they are not embarked, they CANNOT use the Invasion Beam.
If GW FAQs it to be that they dont take the hit, I would understand, but until then they do.
So make sure you drop em out the turn it arrives!
47494
Post by: GiantSlingshot
gregor_xenos wrote:SO... my flyer crashes and burns and my "not there" crons have to take a hit and possibly die? Since they can be hit; do they get RP rolls as well? (I know youre gonna say NO)
If the damage gets to them, and then they reserve; wouldnt it stand to reason that they get RP too?
I'm on the side of it not hurting them.
Hrm... What seems to hurt the RP idea is that you must "Place the Model In Coherency" with the unit... I don't think you can legally measure coherency when the unit isn't on the board.
However... Ever Living tokens are placed where the model died... so, if that's the case, then the character died in the transport, and you should theoretically place the EL token on the board... this would only work if the entire unit got wiped (otherwise you'd have to place him in coherency with his unit), and the EL guy isn't enough to let the non-characters roll for RP.
5841
Post by: Bylak
Kiredor wrote:By RAW it does hurt them.
They take a S10 hit with no armour saves allowed, as they are embarked.
If they are not embarked, they CANNOT use the Invasion Beam.
If GW FAQs it to be that they dont take the hit, I would understand, but until then they do.
So make sure you drop em out the turn it arrives!
The rule doesn't say embarked though, it says "within".
pg. 81 wrote:If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 his with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."
I know this is getting really picky, especially with GW's noted history of not wording their rules in the best way possible, but I don't think this is as clear a RAW case as you're making it out to be. Why not use "Embarked" to eliminate all confusion in this regard? Am I arguing semantics here, or is it a deliberate choice of wording by GW? I agree that we're probably not going to get an answer one way or the other, but for the time being it might be something you want to talk to your opponent about first before playing.
EDIT: Also the problems with RP as noted above. Again I know GW has a reputation here with rules and FAQ's, but that seems like kind of a big point to miss clarifying to me.
17135
Post by: headrattle
Bylak wrote:Kiredor wrote:By RAW it does hurt them.
They take a S10 hit with no armour saves allowed, as they are embarked.
If they are not embarked, they CANNOT use the Invasion Beam.
If GW FAQs it to be that they dont take the hit, I would understand, but until then they do.
So make sure you drop em out the turn it arrives!
The rule doesn't say embarked though, it says "within".
By that logic, none of the models "embarked" on a Vandetta are "within" because I didn't put the models "within" the vandetta. They are embarked.
Fluff doesn't matter. Models are Embarked or they aren't. Embarked models take a hit.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
headrattle wrote:Bylak wrote:Kiredor wrote:By RAW it does hurt them.
They take a S10 hit with no armour saves allowed, as they are embarked.
If they are not embarked, they CANNOT use the Invasion Beam.
If GW FAQs it to be that they dont take the hit, I would understand, but until then they do.
So make sure you drop em out the turn it arrives!
The rule doesn't say embarked though, it says "within".
By that logic, none of the models "embarked" on a Vandetta are "within" because I didn't put the models "within" the vandetta. They are embarked.
Fluff doesn't matter. Models are Embarked or they aren't. Embarked models take a hit.
This seems pretty cut and dry. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
According to the rules, either you're passengers in the transport or you're not. If you're passengers, then you can use Invasion Beam to disembark, but you also are affected by other rules that affect passengers, such as when a Zooming flyer is destroyed. The fluff is entirely irrelevant here, just as it is irrelevant when it comes to poisoned weapons working on your robots. If we played according to the fluff then every squad of Space Marines would be its own 2000-point army.
15529
Post by: Larotonda1984
Um... Just throwing this out there... From the FAQ " A unit that begins it's Movement phase embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark before or after the vehicle has moved..."
So according to the FAQ... They are embarked... Yes? just, you know, throwing that out there... NOT SAYING anything... just, like i said, throwing that out there. :-)
47230
Post by: Ponies are chaos
Has any of you actually read the Necron codex?
It says so in the night scythe entry that "If the Night scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve.
So they can use the invasion beam and they don't die. Since that's how the RULE is worded.
And since they go straight into reserves they never take the hits.
I find it very silly how people can bend it like this, if so PLEASE explain it to me.
4308
Post by: coredump
Because the S10 hit is triggered by the transport wreck/explode. The rules say the passengers take the hits *then* they disembark. The Necron rules say instead of disembarking, they go back into reserves. The Necron rules say nothing about not taking the damage.
16368
Post by: snakel
Either way you are damaging a unit not yet on the board ! the Necrons are never in the Nightscythe
Sorry but i am with the no damage people here and i am confident that once FAQ'ed that will be proven
If they take damage then they can also try there RP but units not on the table ,cant do that ,so by the logic of they take the hits you are saying a unit in reserve, off the table can be damaged but cant move, shoot ,assault or try to come back,also if a lith is on the table and the troops in reserve are going to enter play via its gate and you explode it those troops also get hit
Seems to me the Necrons are OP let's find a way to hurt them
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:Either way you are damaging a unit not yet on the board ! the Necrons are never in the Nightscythe
Sorry but i am with the no damage people here and i am confident that once FAQ'ed that will be proven
If they take damage then they can also try there RP but units not on the table ,cant do that ,so by the logic of they take the hits you are saying a unit in reserve, off the table can be damaged but cant move, shoot ,assault or try to come back,also if a lith is on the table and the troops in reserve are going to enter play via its gate and you explode it those troops also get hit
Seems to me the Necrons are OP let's find a way to hurt them
The Necrons are embarked on the Night Scythe - they must be to disembark from it. That's what the actual rules say.
If an FAQ answers differently it is changing the rules. There's no problem with that, but it's a simple fact.
No, your Monolith example is incorrect - iirc it explicitly says models do not embark on it.
You're trying to use fluff to justify the immunity.
Finally, insinuating bias is insulting and reeks of "I have no more arguments I just don't like losing."
4001
Post by: Compel
For the RAI peoples or fluff bunnies, if you want to justify it, standing in front of an open portal where the other end explodes may cause nasty feedbackness and even wreckage flying through the gateway striking them on the head.
Or somesuch.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Compel wrote:For the RAI peoples or fluff bunnies, if you want to justify it, standing in front of an open portal where the other end explodes may cause nasty feedbackness and even wreckage flying through the gateway striking them on the head.
Or somesuch.
rigeld2 wrote:They're standing at a portal, waiting to step through. Feedback caused by the crash surges through the portal, causing a small explosion. The leftover Necrons are ordered through a different portal and materialize at the board edge.
Great minds? :-)
16368
Post by: snakel
You assume this portal is open all the time i don't
In the 5th this rule hurt the Necrons as they could not fly up to an objective last turn and still have units contesting if the Scythe was wreaked unlike every other skimmer /Flyer
Now in the 6th where this rule actually benefits the Necrons meaning they are safe until put on the board everyone looks for RAW interpretations to remove that advantage .
This is a simple case of you cant do that its not fair .
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:You assume this portal is open all the time i don't
In the 5th this rule hurt the Necrons as they could not fly up to an objective last turn and still have units contesting if the Scythe was wreaked unlike every other skimmer /Flyer
Now in the 6th where this rule actually benefits the Necrons meaning they are safe until put on the board everyone looks for RAW interpretations to remove that advantage .
This is a simple case of you cant do that its not fair .
That's absolutely false. In 6th the rules changed. We now apply those rules.
You're still asserting bias and trying to use fluff to override actual rules.
It's impossible to have a constructive discussion like that.
If you can provide a rule supporting your viewpoint, it'd be great to see.
57035
Post by: jms40k
Honestly people arguing that they don't disembark are missing the point. Damage occurs before and regardless of disembarkation.
This is true for non-flyer transports as well. These rules are found on p80 and p81.
16368
Post by: snakel
rigeld2 wrote:snakel wrote:You assume this portal is open all the time i don't
In the 5th this rule hurt the Necrons as they could not fly up to an objective last turn and still have units contesting if the Scythe was wreaked unlike every other skimmer /Flyer
Now in the 6th where this rule actually benefits the Necrons meaning they are safe until put on the board everyone looks for RAW interpretations to remove that advantage .
This is a simple case of you cant do that its not fair .
That's absolutely false. In 6th the rules changed. We now apply those rules.
You're still asserting bias and trying to use fluff to override actual rules.
It's impossible to have a constructive discussion like that.
If you can provide a rule supporting your viewpoint, it'd be great to see.
Heres the rule . RAW means exactly that and i and many others read those rules differently to you Automatically Appended Next Post: jms40k wrote:Honestly people arguing that they don't disembark are missing the point. Damage occurs before and regardless of disembarkation.
This is true for non-flyer transports as well. These rules are found on p80 and p81.
You are not nor ever disembarking you are being thrown out of the flyer as it has exploded hence placing surviving models 2D6 from the normal point you would place models getting out of a flyer .
Show me the rule where it say these models are disembarking after a crash and burn !!!
if you believe that is disembarking then i would not like to see you get off a plane
58920
Post by: Neorealist
I figure i may was well add my 2 bits. I agree with the 'The models go back into reserve rather than take the hit' crowd, and here is why:
1) Necron Codex (Nightscythe rules): If the model is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve.
2) 6th Ed BRB (dedicated transport Embarking rules): ...forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed...
3) 6th Ed BRB (Flyer rules): If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast
marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
So we have a nightscythe flying along, mind it's own business, and out of nowhere *bam* it gets blown out of the sky by a skyfire quadgun on a bastion. At this point a few things try to happen, based on the rules above.
1) The nightscythe is destroyed so the models within are placed in reserve.
2) The models within are forced to disembark.
3) The models within take str 10 'no armor saves allowed' hits and are then placed within coherancy of the blast marker.
The flier 'crash and burn' rules supersede the regular transport rules. (advanced trumps basic) so rule 3 trumps rule 2. However the 'takes a str 10 hit 'and' goes back into reserve camp seems to be applying 'half' of the third rule, and ignoring the other half. Given that Codex trumps Basic Rule Book, shouldn't the entire 'crash and burn' transport rule be superseded by the Necron codex 'Nightscythe embarked unit go into reserve' rule?
What you folk are saying is just as rules-valid as saying they go into reserve without the hit and 'then' can deploy within 3 inches of the blast marker for the downed plane. You don't get to cherry-pick a portion of a the 'Crash & Burn' rules that you prefer and ignore the other half, either the rule for it is in effect or it is not.
56588
Post by: Ub3rb3n
you have to remember the necron codex was written with 6th edition in mind. Rules as written says if there are embarked and the night scythe is destroyed the models are not allowed to disembark but must enter reserves(not allowed to deep strike)
in the BRB it says under explodes and wrecked vehicles "the vehicle is destroyed"
perfectly clear that they are allowed to enter reserves
57035
Post by: jms40k
Neorealist wrote:
So we have a nightscythe flying along, mind it's own business, and out of nowhere *bam* it gets blown out of the sky by a skyfire quadgun on a bastion. At this point a few things try to happen, based on the rules above.
1) The nightscythe is destroyed so the models within are placed in reserve.
2) The models within are forced to disembark.
3) The models within take str 10 'no armor saves allowed' hits and are then placed within coherancy of the blast marker.
Here's the problem. The rule book specifically says to take the damage then place the models. Your order is wrong. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ub3rb3n wrote:you have to remember the necron codex was written with 6th edition in mind. Rules as written says if there are embarked and the night scythe is destroyed the models are not allowed to disembark but must enter reserves(not allowed to deep strike)
in the BRB it says under explodes and wrecked vehicles "the vehicle is destroyed"
perfectly clear that they are allowed to enter reserves
They enter reserves instead of being placed, sure. It doesn't matter, though, because damage happens before the "forced disembarkation" or placing of models occurs.
16368
Post by: snakel
jms40k wrote:
They enter reserves instead of being placed, sure. It doesn't matter, though, because damage happens before the "forced disembarkation" or placing of models occurs.
When does the crash and burn rule mention disembarkation or forced disembarkation ?
They are thrown from the flyer hence the damage or Str 10 hits
49408
Post by: McNinja
If the Necron troops embarked upon a Night Scythe take damage, then the entire third paragraph of fluff in the Night Scythe entry is completely irrelevent. You might as well take a sharpie to your codex and redact that paragraph.
Also, the codex says if the HS is destroyed, the units go straight into reserves.
Consider the following:
The order is Wrecked/Explodes>back to reserves> blast marker scatter>S6/S10 hits. Why? Because The codex says that once the NS is destroyed, the units go into reserves. There's no lag between "boom" and resverves. When one happens, the other instantly happens. After the Flyer is destroyed via wrecked/explodes result, the large blast marker placement happens before the S10 hits do, though the S6 hits and S10 hits occur at the same time.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Neorealist wrote:I figure i may was well add my 2 bits. I agree with the 'The models go back into reserve rather than take the hit' crowd, and here is why:
1) Necron Codex (Nightscythe rules): If the model is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve.
2) 6th Ed BRB (dedicated transport Embarking rules): ...forced to disembark if their Transport is destroyed...
3) 6th Ed BRB (Flyer rules): If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast
marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
So we have a nightscythe flying along, mind it's own business, and out of nowhere *bam* it gets blown out of the sky by a skyfire quadgun on a bastion. At this point a few things try to happen, based on the rules above.
1) The nightscythe is destroyed so the models within are placed in reserve.
2) The models within are forced to disembark.
3) The models within take str 10 'no armor saves allowed' hits and are then placed within coherancy of the blast marker.
The flier 'crash and burn' rules supersede the regular transport rules. (advanced trumps basic) so rule 3 trumps rule 2. However the 'takes a str 10 hit 'and' goes back into reserve camp seems to be applying 'half' of the third rule, and ignoring the other half. Given that Codex trumps Basic Rule Book, shouldn't the entire 'crash and burn' transport rule be superseded by the Necron codex 'Nightscythe embarked unit go into reserve' rule?
What you folk are saying is just as rules-valid as saying they go into reserve without the hit and 'then' can deploy within 3 inches of the blast marker for the downed plane. You don't get to cherry-pick a portion of a the 'Crash & Burn' rules that you prefer and ignore the other half, either the rule for it is in effect or it is not.
Someone beat me to it! This is exactly right.
57035
Post by: jms40k
snakel wrote:jms40k wrote:
They enter reserves instead of being placed, sure. It doesn't matter, though, because damage happens before the "forced disembarkation" or placing of models occurs.
When does the crash and burn rule mention disembarkation or forced disembarkation ?
They are thrown from the flyer hence the damage or Str 10 hits
"...or placing of models occurs..."
60406
Post by: captain-crud
Just read the updated necron codex for 6th and you will see they don't take any hits. you can get this digtialy or from GW or wait for your game store to sell out on necron codex's and get the new ones in
49408
Post by: McNinja
Really? updated necron codex in print and not horribly expensive Apple-only digital versions? That'd be swell.
57035
Post by: jms40k
captain-crud wrote:Just read the updated necron codex for 6th and you will see they don't take any hits. you can get this digtialy or from GW or wait for your game store to sell out on necron codex's and get the new ones in
Can you quote anything relevant?
60406
Post by: captain-crud
freind has it on his Ipad covered lot things for example the axes with shields aint axes and there ap 3 in profile. The night flyer says models are counted as being left in reseerves from beging of game if it is destroyed. cant do aculty qoute off head right now. so basically way it reads if plane is destroyed they have never ented game so I am thinking they cant be hit by anything.
Dont have Ipad so I cant get the download also if you unistall l the marines digital codex and reinstall its updated for 6th.
35970
Post by: Userarm
'The night flyer says models are counted as being left in reserves from beginning of game if it is destroyed.'
This would certainly solve the issue as they would never count as being embarked on the NS, of course thats if it is true and i hope it is.
If you could check with your friend and put up the exact quote to stop the circular motion of yes they do, no they dont arguments we are currently experiencing it would be greatly appreciated, many thanks.
16368
Post by: snakel
So my units are now safe in the nightscythe as they always were (sorry to the its not fair so i will use RAW to twist it my way brigade)
Glad we sorted that out :
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote: (sorry to the its not fair so i will use RAW to twist it my way brigade)
Please stop falsely representing the entire other side of the argument.
It doesn't occur to you that if they have to change the rules in an errataed codex, that RAW before that errata your position is incorrect?
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
I have the iPad Cron dex--and it states;
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).
57035
Post by: jms40k
AgeOfEgos wrote:I have the iPad Cron dex--and it states;
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).
So... basically the same?
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
jms40k wrote:AgeOfEgos wrote:I have the iPad Cron dex--and it states;
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).
So... basically the same?
I see no difference--nothing under the unit entries either. Although the Hyperphase sword is clarified as Str: As User AP: 3.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
So... False alarm? They still take the hits?
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
rigeld2 wrote:So... False alarm? They still take the hits?
*Shrug*, I think everyone has made convincing arguments both ways--it will need a FAQ. I'm inclined to believe that they do not take the hit--as the Reserve notation, that they spent a paragraph on--would be pretty strange if everyone takes a Str. 10 hit with no save. It also brings up other questions in my mind (Reanimation Protocol--wound allocation--since they cannot be placed per the mainbook rule are they technically destroyed by RAW, etc).
Probably something to end the debate over and just wait for INAT or GW (So, basically the INAT)
16368
Post by: snakel
rigeld2 wrote:snakel wrote: (sorry to the its not fair so i will use RAW to twist it my way brigade)
Please stop falsely representing the entire other side of the argument.
It doesn't occur to you that if they have to change the rules in an errataed codex, that RAW before that errata your position is incorrect?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No it occurs to me some people are so wrapped up ion RAW is LAW they cant see the wood for the trees hence is some cases GW have to change wording to show them the wood
The game has RAW and RAI it is up to the players to choose how to interpret both, you and many others automatically say no you cant no matter what RAW and RAI insinuate .
What should be happening is you state you read RAW this way and would play it as such. not NO you cant there's a full stop here and an exclamation mark there so you are wrong .
Some times RAW needs RIA to be made clear as RAI need RAW to do the same . state what you believe and job done then after several opinions have been post people can choose to go with the majority or not
Raw states they are in reserve, models in reserve cant be hit or take any part in the game till they are on the board while some choose to ignore RAI and logic, if they used all 3 they would come to the same conclusion no hits after crash and burn
So if they take the hit do they take a LD test while in reserve ,do they then if they fail that test ,become destroyed as they are already off the board, your argument relies on people breaking the rules by taking LD test and such for units not in play which you cant do .
Following RAI and RAW after what happens can also tell us if the initial action was right and in this case everything points to taking the hits as wrong .
47462
Post by: rigeld2
No, people following the tenets of this sub forum only consider RAW.
RAW they take the hits. Yes, that means other questions pop up - that does not mean its incorrect RAW. If you are bringing intent into the argument, say so. Instead you called everyone on the other side biased Necron haters that just didn't want to see the Night Scythe be good.
In general, models in reserve can't be effected by anything on the board. Models in a Night Scythe aren't in reserve until the flyer blows up. Therefore there is no rule to be broken.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
By RAW? they do not take the hits. RAW = Necron Codex overrules the 'Crash and Burn' transport rules, so they end up in reserve instead of taking the hits 'and' being placed on the table 'or' being removed as casualties for not being placed on the table.
Question for you: If you'd like to continue to apply only part of the flier rules to the hypothetical situation, why are you neglecting to add that last part to it? You know, the part that says that any models which cannot be placed on the table are removed as casualties? Obviously a unit in reserve cannot be placed that way (or at least it'd require mixing up both the rules in an unusual fashion), so that would mean (using your logic) that they should all be destroyed each and every time a necron nightscythe suffers that fate?
16368
Post by: snakel
rigeld2 wrote:No, people following the tenets of this sub forum only consider RAW.
RAW they take the hits. Yes, that means other questions pop up - that does not mean its incorrect RAW. If you are bringing intent into the argument, say so. Instead you called everyone on the other side biased Necron haters that just didn't want to see the Night Scythe be good.
In general, models in reserve can't be effected by anything on the board. Models in a Night Scythe aren't in reserve until the flyer blows up. Therefore there is no rule to be broken.
LOL RAW + what happens next by RAW = breaking the rules by RAW, so which part of RAW are we allowed to use if 1 rule called in to action by another is broken by the first even if as you say its RAW
35970
Post by: Userarm
The flyer rules tell us ' If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.'
The NS rule is 'If the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark but instead enters reserve.
The unit is within the NS as they have to be embarked to use it as stated quite cleary under the transport rules pg78 on numerous occasions, since the unit is embarked you take the S10 hit with no armour saves as the Flyer rule emphasises this first before the disembarking part (note the Survivors are placed, so the hit comes first before the disembarking), however after the hits are taken the NS rule then takes precedence because instead of disembarking as would normally be required the unit enters into reserve instead.
I would also note that since they would be removed as casualties due to the S10 hit while they were embarked (classed as on the table) they would also get their RP at the end of that turns shooting phase and would add any who got back up to the their unit that is now in reserve, RP is only negated if they made a fallback move which the NS rule is not classed as, so in my opinion and based on the wording they would get it unless the unit was completely wiped out by the S10 hit or only a character was left.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Neorealist wrote:By RAW? they do not take the hits. RAW = Necron Codex overrules the 'Crash and Burn' transport rules, so they end up in reserve instead of taking the hits 'and' being placed on the table 'or' being removed as casualties for not being placed on the table.
Question for you: If you'd like to continue to apply only part of the flier rules to the hypothetical situation, why are you neglecting to add that last part to it? You know, the part that says that any models which cannot be placed on the table are removed as casualties? Obviously a unit in reserve cannot be placed that way (or at least it'd require mixing up both the rules in an unusual fashion), so that would mean (using your logic) that they should all be destroyed each and every time a necron nightscythe suffers that fate?
By RAW the codex overrides only rules that are directly contradicted by the rulebook. The rulebook tells you that you place models after taking the hits. The NS rule ONLY tells you what you do INSTEAD of placing the models.
ONLY the part which directly contradicts the BRB is ignored.
RAW, you take the hits. That is the correct, current rule. In addition until we get a page and para of this supposed "new" necron codex, or a FAQ is released errata-ing these rules, that is the rules as it stands.
16368
Post by: snakel
Userarm wrote:The flyer rules tell us ' If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.'
The NS rule is 'If the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark but instead enters reserve.
The unit is within the NS as they have to be embarked to use it as stated quite cleary under the transport rules pg78 on numerous occasions, since the unit is embarked you take the S10 hit with no armour saves as the Flyer rule emphasises this first before the disembarking part (note the Survivors are placed, so the hit comes first before the disembarking), however after the hits are taken the NS rule then takes precedence because instead of disembarking as would normally be required the unit enters into reserve instead.
I would also note that since they would be removed as casualties due to the S10 hit while they were embarked (classed as on the table) they would also get their RP at the end of that turns shooting phase and would add any who got back up to the their unit that is now in reserve, RP is only negated if they made a fallback move which the NS rule is not classed as, so in my opinion and based on the wording they would get it unless the unit was completely wiped out by the S10 hit or only a character was left.
So you are happy that they don't take a LD test if they lose 25% which happens at the end of the phase when they are now out of play ,you are also happy that they get their RP roll at the end of the phase when they are now out of play ?
If so then you are happy to break the rules by RAW to allow them to take tests and other such abilities they may have when they are not in play .
By your logic they would be destroyed no matter how many lived, as RAW states you place the models where the blast scatters any models not able to be placed are destroyed ,you are picking where to enact the NE special rule with no basis or RAW ruling to do so .
No where in the Crash and burn rule does it say disembarkation or emergency disembarkation ,you are choosing to use it since you wont accept a unit in a flyer is being thrown out not disembarking .
Logic would dictate flyer goes bang unit inside gets scattered to the wind yet the Necrons rule says they just go in to reserve ,so flyer goes bang Necrons are immediately in reserve you then say a unit in reserve suffer hits which is not allowed by RAW!!!
Disembarkation states models must be within 1" of the transport doors or its base yet the Crash and burn rule says place models withing 3" of where the blast markers final position is which could be anything up to 6" away and possibly more IE they are not the same thing .
Last you cant by any stretch of RAW or imagination disembark something that is no longer there as it has been blown up !!!!!!
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It is not possible for the models to take the S10 hits because the invasion beam is destroyed and would no longer function.
37352
Post by: Mandor
Userarm wrote:I would also note that since they would be removed as casualties due to the S10 hit while they were embarked (classed as on the table) they would also get their RP at the end of that turns shooting phase and would add any who got back up to the their unit that is now in reserve, RP is only negated if they made a fallback move which the NS rule is not classed as, so in my opinion and based on the wording they would get it unless the unit was completely wiped out by the S10 hit or only a character was left.
Even though you are allowed to make the RP rolls, you automatically lose the models, because they cannot be placed according to RP's own rules.
snakel wrote:So you are happy that they don't take a LD test if they lose 25% which happens at the end of the phase when they are now out of play ,you are also happy that they get their RP roll at the end of the phase when they are now out of play ?
If so then you are happy to break the rules by RAW to allow them to take tests and other such abilities they may have when they are not in play .
By your logic they would be destroyed no matter how many lived, as RAW states you place the models where the blast scatters any models not able to be placed are destroyed ,you are picking where to enact the NE special rule with no basis or RAW ruling to do so .
No where in the Crash and burn rule does it say disembarkation or emergency disembarkation ,you are choosing to use it since you wont accept a unit in a flyer is being thrown out not disembarking .
Logic would dictate flyer goes bang unit inside gets scattered to the wind yet the Necrons rule says they just go in to reserve ,so flyer goes bang Necrons are immediately in reserve you then say a unit in reserve suffer hits which is not allowed by RAW!!!
Disembarkation states models must be within 1" of the transport doors or its base yet the Crash and burn rule says place models withing 3" of where the blast markers final position is which could be anything up to 6" away and possibly more IE they are not the same thing .
Last you cant by any stretch of RAW or imagination disembark something that is no longer there as it has been blown up !!!!!!
We are discussing RAW on this forum. If you do not, maybe you should take your case to some other (part of this) forum?
16368
Post by: snakel
Mandor wrote:Userarm wrote:I would also note that since they would be removed as casualties due to the S10 hit while they were embarked (classed as on the table) they would also get their RP at the end of that turns shooting phase and would add any who got back up to the their unit that is now in reserve, RP is only negated if they made a fallback move which the NS rule is not classed as, so in my opinion and based on the wording they would get it unless the unit was completely wiped out by the S10 hit or only a character was left.
Even though you are allowed to make the RP rolls, you automatically lose the models, because they cannot be placed according to RP's own rules.
snakel wrote:So you are happy that they don't take a LD test if they lose 25% which happens at the end of the phase when they are now out of play ,you are also happy that they get their RP roll at the end of the phase when they are now out of play ?
If so then you are happy to break the rules by RAW to allow them to take tests and other such abilities they may have when they are not in play .
By your logic they would be destroyed no matter how many lived, as RAW states you place the models where the blast scatters any models not able to be placed are destroyed ,you are picking where to enact the NE special rule with no basis or RAW ruling to do so .
No where in the Crash and burn rule does it say disembarkation or emergency disembarkation ,you are choosing to use it since you wont accept a unit in a flyer is being thrown out not disembarking .
Logic would dictate flyer goes bang unit inside gets scattered to the wind yet the Necrons rule says they just go in to reserve ,so flyer goes bang Necrons are immediately in reserve you then say a unit in reserve suffer hits which is not allowed by RAW!!!
Disembarkation states models must be within 1" of the transport doors or its base yet the Crash and burn rule says place models withing 3" of where the blast markers final position is which could be anything up to 6" away and possibly more IE they are not the same thing .
Last you cant by any stretch of RAW or imagination disembark something that is no longer there as it has been blown up !!!!!!
We are discussing RAW on this forum. If you do not, maybe you should take your case to some other (part of this) forum?
Sorry i didn't know stating RAW several times in my post and using RAW to back up my argument was not discussing RAW
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except you havent used RAW, just stated the phrase.
The rulebook says you use codex > rulebook when the rules contradict
You have 2 parts of crash and burn, of which only one is contradicted by the necron codex.
You have no permission to ignore the S10 part, so you may not do so.
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you havent used RAW, just stated the phrase.
The rulebook says you use codex > rulebook when the rules contradict
You have 2 parts of crash and burn, of which only one is contradicted by the necron codex.
You have no permission to ignore the S10 part, so you may not do so.
So if i use RAW to show that if you stick to your interpretation of RAW regarding Necrons and Nightscythes you will then go on to break several other rules If you continue to use RAW .
1 units that suffer 25%casualties must take a LD test at the end of the phase RAW
2 Disembarkation rules stated above using RAW
3 Crash and burn rules used above stating RAW
4 Reserves take no part in the game until they enter play through the reserve rule be it DS out flanking or just moving on the board RAW
so if i am not using RAW what am i using ?
49616
Post by: grendel083
1. Vehicle destroyed
2. Embarked unit suffers damage
3. Unit disembarks
This is the order of things. Currently the Night Scythe rules replaces step 3.
No rules will break, if the unit suffers 25% casualties they are Fearless (p78) at the time the damage occurs.
This may not fit the fluff, and personally I think this will be FAQ'd to prevent the damage soon, but as it stands the unit will suffer damage.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
As bad as it sounds, fluff is not a valid argument in this thread. Although in fluff necrons arent in the transport they are for game purposes, just like in fluff scarabs replicate when they kill something but in game they dont. RAW the hit is taken before a disembark action, therefor the hit is taken before the necrons are placed in reserve..
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
snakel wrote:
So if i use RAW to show that if you stick to your interpretation of RAW regarding Necrons and Nightscythes you will then go on to break several other rules If you continue to use RAW .
And? You have to realise that is NOT a rules argument - one rule being the written rule creating other problems isnt an auto pass to forget the written rule.
snakel wrote:
1 units that suffer 25%casualties must take a LD test at the end of the phase RAW
Cannot take part in the game, so cannot take a check. More specific rule overriding the more general rule
snakel wrote:
2 Disembarkation rules stated above using RAW
Nope, just an assertion. If claiming " RAW" please actually quote some rules.
snakel wrote:
3 Crash and burn rules used above stating RAW
As above
snakel wrote:
4 Reserves take no part in the game until they enter play through the reserve rule be it DS out flanking or just moving on the board RAW
Yes, so they take no [part in the game *after* they are put in Reserves. Which is AFTER they take the hits.
snakel wrote:
so if i am not using RAW what am i using ?
Currently youre not actually using rules, just making assertions. Please follow the rules of this forum
58920
Post by: Neorealist
grendel083 wrote:1. Vehicle destroyed
2. Embarked unit suffers damage
3. Unit disembarks
You forgot 4. Any unit which cannot be placed is removed as a casualty.
I'm not sure why people keep ignoring that part, but it's as much a part of the 'Crash and Burn' rules as the strength 10 hit and just as applicable to the strange amalgomation of rules people seem to be trying to create with the necron nightscythe rules and the flier 'crash and burn' ones.
nosferatu1001 wrote:By RAW the codex overrides only rules that are directly contradicted by the rulebook. The rulebook tells you that you place models after taking the hits. The NS rule ONLY tells you what you do INSTEAD of placing the models.
ONLY the part which directly contradicts the BRB is ignored.
RAW, you take the hits. That is the correct, current rule. In addition until we get a page and para of this supposed "new" necron codex, or a FAQ is released errata-ing these rules, that is the rules as it stands.
The entire rule directly contradicts what is in the BRB if any part of it does. There isn't (to my awareness) any precident to apply only 'some' of a rule if half of the rule is invalidated by either a more advanced or codex rule which states otherwise.
What i contend is that the necron nightscythe rule about placing the unit in reserve 'replaces' the entire section of the crash and burn rules referring to what normally happens to passenger in zooming flyers since Codex trumps Basic.
Ergo, the 'strength 10 no-armor-saves-allowed hit, the 'place the remaining models within 3 inches of the final location of the blast marker', and the 'remove any models which cannot be placed as casualties' parts of the 'crash and burn' rules No Longer Happen. but are instead replaced in their entirety with the nightscythe rules.
What i'd like to see from folk who believe otherwise is some rules support for dissecting the 'crash and burn' transport rules and only using the 'strength 10 hit' part of it and nothing else...
54835
Post by: Fafnir13
I like your argument and will repeat it should a problem arise. Should at least give a right to roll off until a FAQ clarifies.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
"The entire rule directly contradicts what is in the BRB if any part of it does"
Rules quote for this assertion please. Given it is the entire basis of your argument.
Mordrak DS without scatter, on the first turn. Does this mean we ignore the DS rules entirely, as his rule contradicts the DS rule, or does he only ignore one part of the DS rule? Reserves do not turn up unil turn 2 - does his rule about turning up from reserves in turn 1 replace the entire Reserves rule, or jst the part it contradicts.
There are many, many examples of partial replacements.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Certainly.
6th Edition Main Book - page 7 wrote:Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain siruations. If, however, that rnodel has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks - the advanced rule takes precedence.
You'll note that the above rule does not make blanket provisions for only partially applying a rule, or applying only 'part' of a given rule. Either the basic rule applies or the entirety of the conflicting advanced one does. You do not have permission to combine them unless the advanced rule specifically says you can. (like with Mordrak and the Deepstriking and Reserves rules)
On a related note: there are many advanced rules which incorporate aspects of (and refer to) basic ones in order to provide their intended functionality. In this case, the nightscythes do not.
60406
Post by: captain-crud
I apologize for getting qoute wrong from memoery my bad atleast i rembered the hypersword right lol
14
Post by: Ghaz
Neorealist wrote:Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules
Except you haven't proven that there are any contradicting rules.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
i believe i have, but i'll happily restate my argument.
Rule 1 (the flier 'Crash and Burn' transports rule)
If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes... ...If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
Rule 2 (The Nightscythe rule)
If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve...
They both directly contradict in that they both try to indicate what to do with and where to place models after the nightscythe is destroyed; as the models cannot both be placed into reserves 'and' be placed on the board after being effected by the str 10 hit.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
The Night Scythe rule overrides the "cannot be placed" rule - as the unit is now in Reserve, that sentence cannot apply.
But they take the Str10 hit before being put into reserves.
Also, yellow is really hard to read on the mobile theme. Really hard.
49408
Post by: McNinja
Neorealist wrote:i believe i have, but i'll happily restate my argument.
Rule 1 (the flier 'Crash and Burn' transports rule)
If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes... ...If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
Rule 2 (The Nightscythe rule)
If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve...
They both directly contradict in that they both try to indicate what to do with and where to place models after the nightscythe is destroyed; as the models cannot both be placed into reserves 'and' be placed on the board after being effected by the str 10 hit.
Man, I love it when I post something, then it's completely ignored. So fun.
Anyway, the NS rule says that when it is destroyed, the models go into reserves. They don't wait five minutes for you to roll for scatter and to-wound, they simply go into reserves right away. Simple as that. Crash and Burn is not relevant, as there is nothing inside the NS by the time scatter is rolled for.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Hehe, sorry if i missed one of your posts McNinja. From what you seem to be saying it looks like we agree on the results, if not necessarily the reasons for it.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
McNinja wrote:Anyway, the NS rule says that when it is destroyed, the models go into reserves. They don't wait five minutes for you to roll for scatter and to-wound, they simply go into reserves right away. Simple as that. Crash and Burn is not relevant, as there is nothing inside the NS by the time scatter is rolled for.
that's not what it says.
It says that they are not allowed to disembark, rather that they enter reserves.
What happens before the unit disembarks from a wrecked flyer?
49408
Post by: McNinja
Neorealist wrote:Hehe, sorry if i missed one of your posts McNinja. From what you seem to be saying it looks like we agree on the results, if not necessarily the reasons for it.
Sorry, I didn't mean you necessarily
rigeld2 wrote:McNinja wrote:Anyway, the NS rule says that when it is destroyed, the models go into reserves. They don't wait five minutes for you to roll for scatter and to-wound, they simply go into reserves right away. Simple as that. Crash and Burn is not relevant, as there is nothing inside the NS by the time scatter is rolled for.
that's not what it says.
It says that they are not allowed to disembark, rather that they enter reserves.
What happens before the unit disembarks from a wrecked flyer?
Considering I do not have an updated codex, the NS Transport rule says that if the NS is destroyed, the embarked troops cannot disembark and instead enter reserves. They also cannot Deep Strike.
Though this subforum deals wholly in RAW, this rule is (fairly obviously) extremely fluffy. Why would the troops now in reserves not be able to Deep Strike? The third paragraph tells you exactly why. As I said before in my completely missed post, forcing units embarked on a NS to take damage completely ignores the third paragraph in the NS entry. You may as well take a sharpie to your codex and redact that paragraph, because it describes the exact function of how a NS operates. There is a reason it has a rule called "invasion beam," there is a reason why models that enter reserves by means of their NS exploding cannot Deep Strike, and it's in that paragraph.
Honestly, though, the Transport rule does not aptly describe the function of a NS. A better function would have been allowing you to take any unit out of reserves (following the transport restrictions it lists in the NS entry) as if they had disembarked from a vehicle, following the Invasion Beam rule. That way nothing is actually in the NS, but things can "disembark" from it. Alas, Mat Ward didn't write it that way, so here we are, arguing over rules.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Yes, you should absolutely 100% unequivocally ignore a fluff paragraph when having a rules discussion.
There's where your fault lies. You continue to argue RAI and fluff instead of trying to offer rules support.
42414
Post by: thedunator
The rules for the NS all seem to be written rather poorly.
There's also talk of, in the RAW about embarking into a NS.
However, the BRB states that you can't embark into a flyer that isn't hovering.
NS can't hoover, so why would the rules speak about being able to embark INTO a NS?
Edit: never mind, it looks like the FAQ completely changed that entry. My mistake.
9288
Post by: DevianID
Hey all, I am a bit confused here.
In the flyer rules, when a transport is destroyed there is an order that things happen. Now, the argument that the "takes the s10 hit" side seems to be saying is that:
The transport is destroyed.
You scatter a large blast template.
The embarked unit takes a s10 hit.
The embarked unit is placed within 3 inches of the blast.
Now, in this thread the new NS rule was quoted saying the unit goes into reserves when the transport is destroyed. Wouldnt the unit be sent to reserve BEFORE you scatter a large blast template, as after the flyer is destroyed but before you take damage there is a template to place?
Also, you never disembark from a destroyed transport in 6th, you are instead placed within 3 inchs of a blast marker. So the new wording of the NS quoted makes more sense now.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
rigeld2 wrote:The Night Scythe rule overrides the "cannot be placed" rule - as the unit is now in Reserve, that sentence cannot apply.
But they take the Str10 hit before being put into reserves.
Also, yellow is really hard to read on the mobile theme. Really hard.
That's not possible as the invasion beam would no longer work. I have read your so called fluff explanations as to why they would take the hit but this is in no official. The rules are based upon the actual fluff not how you want it to be.
5841
Post by: Bylak
DevianID wrote:Hey all, I am a bit confused here.
In the flyer rules, when a transport is destroyed there is an order that things happen. Now, the argument that the "takes the s10 hit" side seems to be saying is that:
The transport is destroyed.
You scatter a large blast template.
The embarked unit takes a s10 hit.
The embarked unit is placed within 3 inches of the blast.
Now, in this thread the new NS rule was quoted saying the unit goes into reserves when the transport is destroyed. Wouldnt the unit be sent to reserve BEFORE you scatter a large blast template, as after the unit is destroyed but before you take damage there is a template to place?
Also, you never disembark from a destroyed transport in 6th, you are instead placed within 3 inchs of a blast marker. So the new wording of the NS quoted makes more sense now.
That's a pretty good point for the no hit side I'd think.
14
Post by: Ghaz
From page 81 of the Warhammer 40K 6th edition rulebook, numbered in the order that they appear by myself:
1. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed.
2. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency.
3. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
The rules for the Night Scythe where you place the unit in reserve instead of on the table would come after the unit takes damage, not before.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Ghaz wrote:From page 81 of the Warhammer 40K 6th edition rulebook, numbered in the order that they appear by myself:
1. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed.
2. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency.
3. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
The rules for the Night Scythe where you place the unit in reserve instead of on the table would come after the unit takes damage, not before.
Which is exactly my point. thanks for citing the rule before I had a chance to :-)
A) fluff doesn't mean anything - arguments based on the 3rd paragraph of fluff are useless.
B) the unit is embarked. Full stop. Not "well, they aren't in there" - that's fluff. Actual rules say the unit is embarked.
C) the transport explodes, causing the S10 hit. Then the unit goes into reserve.
D) the Necron iBook doesn't change the wording on this at all.
Seriously, ignoring the fluff argument, does the "no hit" side want to post some actual rules that back their position up?
49290
Post by: katfude
Super simple.
Unit is embarked in the Night Scythe in reserve.
Night Scythe enters play, therefore, so does the unit embarked.
Night Scythe is shot down with embarked unit, by RAW, inside it.
By RAW, the unit takes the S10 hit first.
By RAW, they are then placed.
By codex, they are then put BACK INTO RESERVES.
By RAW, if they sustained 25% casualties, they must take a leadership test to see if they fall back. They are not on the table. and therefore, do not take the test.
By codex, after the leadership test, you may reanimate. For many reasons previously discussed, and most importantly, the unit is not on the table, the reanimation rolls are not allowed to take place.
Super simple. Yes, I believe the hit shouldn't take place. The necrons are advanced enough they can design a portal that would prevent this. Unfortunately, the rules do not support this. Fortunately, Scythes are still super-badass and are still totally relevant.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
katfude wrote:Super simple. Yes, I believe the hit shouldn't take place. The necrons are advanced enough they can design a portal that would prevent this. Unfortunately, the rules do not support this. Fortunately, Scythes are still super-badass and are still totally relevant.
Agreed 100%.
5841
Post by: Bylak
rigeld2 wrote:does the "no hit" side want to post some actual rules that back their position up?
Sure! As pointed out by the poster I quoted . . .
digital Necron Codex (provided by a previous poster) wrote:"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).
pg. 81 wrote:If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, it's flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". And model under the blast marker's final position suffers a strength 6, AP - hit. The Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a strength 10 hit with no armour sames allowed.
If we're following the RAW and the order of operations on pg. 81 it'd go:
1) Flyer destroyed
2) unit enters reserve
3) large blast marker placed - scatters 2D6"
4) models under take str 6 AP - hit
5) Flyer taken off the board.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Except you're not quoting the relevant rules. The rules you quoted have absolutely nothing to do with when the unit leaves the Flier. Try the rules for Fliers that are also Transports that I already quoted.
49290
Post by: katfude
Bylak wrote:
If we're following the RAW and the order of operations on pg. 81 it'd go:
1) Flyer destroyed
2) large blast marker placed - scatters 2D6"
3) models under take str 6 AP - hit
4) flyer is taken off the board
5) embarked unit takes s10 hit
6)embarked unit is placed within 3" of crater, but is instead placed into reserve due to codex
FTFY
You severely replaced the order of operations.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
And that works great (splitting it into a sequence of rulings), if and only if you want to seperate the single 'crash and burn' transport rule into three or four separate sub-rules? and then apply the nightscythes' more advanced rules instead of the last two of them.
Unfortunately there is no (RAW) reason to do this as they are all listed as part of one rule, not several. They both try to do 'something' right when the vehicle explodes and you cannot both 'put a unit in reserves' and 'hit the unit a bunch of times, then put the unit on the table next to a blast marker, then kill any which you cannot place in this fashion' at the same time.
49290
Post by: katfude
I still don't get this.
I know you WANT BEYOND ALL HOPE for the happy little robots to stay on the other side of the portal. Really, I do. I want my huggable little cuddle bunnies.
Please just follow the order of events. The book doesn't say "all this crap happens at the exact same time and you get to choose what happens first because you're a cool guy and I love you". It says this happens. This happens. This happens. Etc. The end. I have listed everything in the order that is was printed in the book.
The ONLY THING that codex entry supercedes is that instead of putting them on the table after everything else resolves per the rulebook, they go back to start and wait their turn.
49408
Post by: McNinja
katfude wrote:
The ONLY THING that codex entry supercedes is that instead of putting them on the table after everything else resolves per the rulebook, they go back to start and wait their turn.
What's worse is that they don't even pass go or collect $200.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
As above.
Mordrak changes the DS rules - so you ignore the DS rules entirely, accoridng to some, as you are not allowed to split up the DS rule into the relevant parts.
29552
Post by: god.ra
McNinja wrote:katfude wrote:
The ONLY THING that codex entry supercedes is that instead of putting them on the table after everything else resolves per the rulebook, they go back to start and wait their turn.
Funny thing is to watch how peoples digging like lawyers in the book and analyse word by word… , even if they know what the intentions (Rules as Intend) of the writers where… logically thinking, that rule is completely pointless if you play it as peoples read it (well in fact is still disputed how to play it)
…ask yourself, why would writer gave the Scythes this special rule, if not to avoid the 6ed S10 AP1 hit? At the end don’t forget the Necrons Codex is written by Super Duper Mat Ward and he does things like this (Read: PO)
IMHO, in situation where we can dispute what the rule actually says ( RAW) vs Codex: the precedence should take Rules as Intend. At the end of the day in 95% of occasions when the FAQ comes out is clarifying that initial thinking ( RAI) where correct, so making a fool of myself and defending something just because one Word / unclear sequence says this is ( IMHO) pointless and childish.
Again this is my thinking, and if I engage Necrons, I will definitely allow to my opponent to move the squad back to reserves after destroying his Scythes without taking damage, just because: “It should be played that way ( IMHO)”.
Anyway, my 2 cents to this thread, this’s “You Make da Call”, and this is how I am making it. So please be polite to me  , accept my thinking and maybe take in consideration what I said.
5841
Post by: Bylak
Ghaz wrote:Except you're not quoting the relevant rules. The rules you quoted have absolutely nothing to do with when the unit leaves the Flier. Try the rules for Fliers that are also Transports that I already quoted.
Um, everyone else has been harping on about pg. 81 and how it applies to units taking the str 10 hit? You're right that I didn't quote the last half of the rule when it talks about the str 10 hit and units being placed within 3" of the wreck but that part of the rule isn't relevant to the point I was trying to make
katfude wrote:I still don't get this.
I know you WANT BEYOND ALL HOPE for the happy little robots to stay on the other side of the portal. Really, I do. I want my huggable little cuddle bunnies.
Please just follow the order of events. The book doesn't say "all this crap happens at the exact same time and you get to choose what happens first because you're a cool guy and I love you". It says this happens. This happens. This happens. Etc. The end. I have listed everything in the order that is was printed in the book.
The ONLY THING that codex entry supercedes is that instead of putting them on the table after everything else resolves per the rulebook, they go back to start and wait their turn.
I'm pretty sure that's the way I laid it out? It makes a lot more sense (especially with the revision to the digital version of the Necron codex) to consider the Night Scythe transport rule as an addition to the order of operations when a Flyer is going down.
When all is said and done though I agree with Mcninja as well on this one. The RAI and the background of the Night Scythe make it seem like GW's intention was for the transported unit to avoid the str 10 hit. That's the way I'd want to play it, but if my opponent disagrees as vehemently as some of you here then I'll play the game as if they do take the hit. Ultimately I think this is going to continue to be an issue until a FAQ comes out explicitly stating one way or the other what happens.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
god.ra wrote:…ask yourself, why would writer gave the Scythes this special rule, if not to avoid the 6ed S10 AP1 hit?
a) doesn't matter
b) To fit the fluff
c) to protect the models that survive from being shot/assaulted
IMHO, in situation where we can dispute what the rule actually says (RAW) vs Codex: the precedence should take Rules as Intend. At the end of the day in 95% of occasions when the FAQ comes out is clarifying that initial thinking (RAI) where correct, so making a fool of myself and defending something just because one Word / unclear sequence says this is (IMHO) pointless and childish.
That's a false assumption - that your interpretation of RAI is the correct one.
Who would have ever guessed that SitW would've been FAQed not to affect units inside a transport?
Or that Spore Cloud would've not caused the initiative drop in assault because "it's not real terrain" - contrary to the actual 5th ed rules?
14
Post by: Ghaz
Neorealist wrote:And that works great (splitting it into a sequence of rulings), if and only if you want to seperate the single 'crash and burn' transport rule into three or four separate sub-rules? and then apply the nightscythes' more advanced rules instead of the last two of them. Unfortunately there is no (RAW) reason to do this as they are all listed as part of one rule, not several. They both try to do 'something' right when the vehicle explodes and you cannot both 'put a unit in reserves' and 'hit the unit a bunch of times, then put the unit on the table next to a blast marker, then kill any which you cannot place in this fashion' at the same time.
Yet that is how you do it with every single rule in the rulebook. Or are you telling us that all of the rules in the main rulebook are in no specific order and are a jumbled mess? I don't think so.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
I feel like at this point this is no longer a discussion. We have come to re-stating the same points continuously and neither side is making headway with the other completly convinced that they are right. At this point the discussion is moot because a consensus is not going to be reached.
53211
Post by: Necronmike
not sure if this has been said yet but if you look on page 7 of the 6th edition rule book, it talks about Basic Rules and Advance rules, and it states, that the advance rules are normaly located in the codex and advance rules take precedence over basic, so i'd say you follow the codex on a night scythe getting destroyed.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
The argument is what in the basic rules is being replaced. Some people belive that the entire rule is replaced, others belive only the relating part is replaced.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I feel like at this point this is no longer a discussion. We have come to re-stating the same points continuously and neither side is making headway with the other completly convinced that they are right. At this point the discussion is moot because a consensus is not going to be reached.
Except one side is stating rules, and the other side believes that fluff should win out.
53211
Post by: Necronmike
oh when i get time i'll read all the postings from font to back, personaly i like the fluf but i would have to rule on "rules" even if they don't work in my favor,
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
rigeld2 wrote:Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I feel like at this point this is no longer a discussion. We have come to re-stating the same points continuously and neither side is making headway with the other completly convinced that they are right. At this point the discussion is moot because a consensus is not going to be reached.
Except one side is stating rules, and the other side believes that fluff should win out.
Dosent change the fact that no one is going to win this.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
I agree with the above, we seem to have been going in circles. I'm one of the people that has been saying that the nightscythes' 'goes back into reserves' rules replaces the entire transport crash and burn rule, not just parts of it. I've done this by quoting relevent rules, not by arguing the fluff. If people wish to continue to dissect the crash and burn transport rule and only apply the parts of it that they like, feel free.
As both rules try to modify the events which occur at the moment he nightscythe is destroyed, we can only follow one of them since they are mutually contradictory. As i've already stated multiple times, Codex > Basic Book, so the nightscythe rule wins out.
I'm not sure how much more clear i can make it to be honest.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote:I'm one of the people that has been saying that the nightscythes' 'goes back into reserves' rules replaces the entire transport crash and burn rule, not just parts of it. I've done this by quoting relevent rules, not by arguing the fluff.
So how does Mordrak Deep Strike? (and many other units that modify the deep strike rules) He has specific rules that modify the Deep Strike rules. If we take the "modifications replace all rules" stance, there are not Deep Strike rules to follow anymore. Also, your interpretation causes NS's to not drop a blast marker when destroyed.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
rigeld2 wrote:So how does Mordrak Deep Strike? (and many other units that modify the deep strike rules)
He has specific rules that modify the Deep Strike rules. If we take the "modifications replace all rules" stance, there are not Deep Strike rules to follow anymore.
Also, your interpretation causes NS's to not drop a blast marker when destroyed.
Any advanced rule which incorporates aspects of a more basic rule (and there are many that do so) explicitly states such: Mordrak's deepstrike and reserves rules explicitly say they modify some aspects of the basic deepstrike and reserve rules. The nightscythe's rules on the other hand make no mention of using the Crash and Burn transport rules.
To use your example: If Mordrak's special rules did not tell you to use the deepstrike rules, then yes his rule would overwrite the normal rules for such entirely as they'd then contradict.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote:To use your example: If Mordrak's special rules did not tell you to use the deepstrike rules, then yes his rule would overwrite the normal rules for such entirely as they'd then contradict.
They don't. They say if he deploys by Deep Strike, he doesn't scatter and arrives in the first turn.
Vanguard Veterans - if you deploy by Deep Strike, you can declare a Heroic Intervention.
Both of them *modify* the base rules - if they *replaced* they wouldn't work at all.
Want me to keep looking for examples? There's probably hundreds throughout the book.
Can you give me one line that says the Night Scythe replaces the entire Crash and Burn section? So that you don't place a marker when the Scythe explodes?
Where are you getting permission to replace the entire section?
42414
Post by: thedunator
I wonder if you could argue that by stating "the unit enters reserves..." and not stating it as "the surviving members of the unit enters reserves..." tells us the rules intention. Aren't there 40k rules written as the later?
58920
Post by: Neorealist
rigeld2 wrote: They don't. They say if he deploys by Deep Strike, he doesn't scatter and arrives in the first turn.
Vanguard Veterans - if you deploy by Deep Strike, you can declare a Heroic Intervention.
Yes, they do. Both of those rules tell you right in your quote even to use the deep-strike rules, except as modified by the specific more advanced rule. Dozens of other advanced rules use a similar wording if they meant you to include aspects of the more basic rule they are superceding.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote:rigeld2 wrote: They don't. They say if he deploys by Deep Strike, he doesn't scatter and arrives in the first turn.
Vanguard Veterans - if you deploy by Deep Strike, you can declare a Heroic Intervention.
Yes, they do. Both of those rules tell you right in your quote even to use the deep-strike rules, except as modified by the specific more advanced rule. Dozens of other advanced rules use a similar wording if they meant you to include aspects of the more basic rule they are superceding.
What wording do you require for the "override"? Since it's your assertion that the Night Scythe does it, what sentence is giving you permission to completely ignore Crash and Burn?
49290
Post by: katfude
The problem to your argument is that the codex only permits you to place the unit into reserve when they are not allowed to disembark.
Disembarking is the last step in crash and burn.
It does not say ANYTHING remotely like, "immediately place in reserve," or, "place in unit in reserve, then resolve..." That would show that you are PERMITTED to ignore the hits. There is nothing permitting you to ignore all the actions that occur before disembarking the unit inside in the codex entry.
There's close to a million 3 word phrases they COULD HAVE put in the codex entry but did not. Whether that is by design or incompetence, I am not sure. Until MAYBE another FAQ comes out, by nature of the wording of all relevant entries in codex and rulebook, I will continue to apply the hits to my deathmarks if my night scythe doesn't kick them out fast enough.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
katfude wrote:The problem to your argument is that the codex only permits you to place the unit into reserve when they are not allowed to disembark.
Disembarking is the last step in crash and burn.
This is incorrect in two ways:
1) The wording in the codex tells you to place them in reserve when the nightscythe is destroyed; being prevented from disembarking is part of that, not the cause.
2) placing surviving models within 3 inches of the blast template is not 'disembarking'. (there are seperate rules for that)
16368
Post by: snakel
I agree this has run its course and no complete answer to change anyone's minds will be found and the reason for that is RAW .
RAW and this sub forum as i keep being told is all that matters ,but as has been found more times than i care to mention RAW itself can not alone answer a rule query (sometimes it can but often not ).
I can say one thing to someone and i can know exactly what i mean yet the other person can and does more often than not misinterpret what i am saying ,I then have to explain what i interned to mean in greater detail as to remove confusion.
Unfortunately we can't ring up the writer of the BRB and any codex to ask them what they meant exactly ,so we are left having to use RAI to add meaning to RAW ,but since this sub forum and many people in it do not allow that, this type of circular argument will carry on and on .
Shout at me tell me i and breaking forum rules ,but the simple fact is RAW alone CAN NOT always make a rule interpretation right or wrong ,only allowing RAW as a valid argument removes logic ,RAI and commonsense .
Rules are guidelines and sometime we have to make use of every thing we have RAW, RAI,logic and commonsense to come to the correct out come .
For the record my interpretation of RAW is the Nightscythe rule = no hits , since i am only allowed to use RAW to back up my belief please do not ask for rules citation, as that would be the same as asking me to fight in a boxing match with both hands tied behind my back .
49290
Post by: katfude
Neorealist wrote:katfude wrote:The problem to your argument is that the codex only permits you to place the unit into reserve when they are not allowed to disembark.
Disembarking is the last step in crash and burn.
This is incorrect in two ways:
1) The wording in the codex tells you to place them in reserve when the nightscythe is destroyed; being prevented from disembarking is part of that, not the cause.
2) placing surviving models within 3 inches of the blast template is not 'disembarking'. (there are seperate rules for that)
I understand your logic and your conclusion.
You will most assuredly be correct if/when a faq is released. I want you to be right.
9288
Post by: DevianID
Guys, as I said RAW is that they dont take hits. Rigeld2, I dont get why you are ignoring the order at play here.
The ONLY THING that codex entry supercedes is that instead of putting them on the table after everything else resolves per the rulebook, they go back to start and wait their turn
Also, as mentioned already this is false. Nowhere in the codex does it say that the scythe happens after everything else resolves... where did that idea even come from? Also, likening my RAW reading of the rules to wishing for happy bunnies seems silly.
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike)"
"If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, it's flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it THEN scatters 2D6". Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers a strength 6, AP - hit. The Flyer is THEN taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a strength 10 hit with no armour sames allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3 of the blast markers final position and in unit coherency."
As I have bolded, there are 'THENS' in the rules... to say that the crash and burn section has no concept of when each rule plays out ignores this.
So we have a codex rule saying that units embarked in the destroyed vehicle go in reserve.
We have the rulebook rule saying that when a flyer is destroyed, first center a blast marker. Then scatter it. Then remove the flyer. Embarked units take damage. Embarked unit gets out of the vehicle (NOT DISEMBARK).
Before the unit embarked in the vehicle gets to where the vehicle takes damage, 3 other things happen. After 3 things happen, we are obviously NOT at the time when the transport gets destroyed, we have moved past that point. The necron rule reads 'If transport destroyed, enter reserve.' Not 'If transport destroyed, do all other relevant rules for what happens AFTER a transport is destroyed, then after resolving all other things after a destroyed result comes up, go back to when the transport was destroyed and apply the necron rule.'
PS: Rigeld, earlier you said What happens before the unit disembarks from a wrecked flyer?
I forgot to mention it specifically, but you dont disembark when a flyer is destroyed OR when a vehicle explodes. Could our opinions be different because you are using the notion that models are disembarking from a crashed flyer, or was disembark an untended word choice in the quote above?"
35552
Post by: algesan
Guys, you are really pikers. If you want to do this kind of crap and claim RAW, then let's do it, don't screw around.
RAW says Necrons take the the S10 hits? Bovine stuff, but we want to find a RAW justification? I tell you want, let's let the Necrons off on this S10 pantywaist stuff, shall we? Give it to them if you seriously think RAW is saying they take it. It doesn't matter.
Page 81 of 6th Edition BRB: "Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties."
Like that last sentence? Now, let's turn to the codex on page 51: "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enter reserve..."
See, last line from the BRB says it all, they cannot disembark, they all freaking DIE! They enter the reserve as CASUALTIES! I don't need no stinking S10 hits or worry about breaking rules down into sequences. I got it nailed down RAW!!!!
Want to ptay "stupid"? I can get "stupider" than any of you pantywaists. Quibbling over a S10 hit when you can just outright kill the entire squad without even bringing the "RP in reserves" question up. The squad is GONE!
Now, there is a difference between RAW and being hyperliteral while taking things out of context. Which is what the Necron "haters" are doing in this thread.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Maybe you should take into account that some of us who are claiming that they take the Strength 10 hit actually play Necrons before you make baseless accusations that are also against the forum rules.
9288
Post by: DevianID
Yeah while I feel that they dont take s10 hits, I agree with Ghaz that you kinda went a bit out there algesan. Though my post right before yours I still believe is a good RAW rules quote saying that reserves happen even before you place a large blast template on a destroyed flyer, thus they dont take a s10 hit.
49290
Post by: katfude
algesan wrote:Want to ptay "stupid"? I can get "stupider" than any of you pantywaists.
There is no reason to be mad.
If you get this worked up about a discussion of rules in a forum that is specifically about discussion of rules, you may want to stick to the other areas of this forum.
The problem I have with the disembark argument is that the language in crash and burn is similar to the transport vehicle description of, Explodes! The models take their hit and are then placed on the board. Because it doesn't say that it is explicitly a disembark in that sentence does not mean it is not a disembark move per all of the rules listed prior.
The argument of the vehicle is removed from the table before the S10 hit is resolved is interesting. This definitely lends creed to the embarked units avoiding said hit, as the vehicle has been destroyed AND if now off the table, but does that in and of itself cause the codex trigger? Again, the rule in the codex references that they do not disembark, but instead enter reserves. I still don't see where the flyer leaving the board allows to you not have to resolve the rules listed before the disembark. The wording for taking the hit and placement only differs by the statement that the flyer's passengers are placed within 3" of the final scatter.
Again, I'd like to clarify that this is for rules clarification and am exploring the wording in depth to see if we can come to a conclusion that is fully resolved. If you have formed your own opinion already or don't want to hear it anymore, you can just not click on this thread.
9288
Post by: DevianID
Katfude, the reason that 'explode' and 'crash and burn' is not a disembark is precisely BECAUSE they are not called a disembark. You must ignore all rules about how disembark works, because disembark works completely differently now, and is incompatible with 'explode' and 'crash and burn.'
For example, to disembark you measure from the vehicles access points/hull and make a move, following movement rules, from there. Exploded ground/crashed flyers both remove the model first and then have you place models anywhere within a particular distance later, with no movement involved.
49290
Post by: katfude
Ok, I get you. That makes sense.
I honestly believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that the hit does not occur, but damn, wouldn't a proper FAQ be just dandy?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Actually, the codex rule says "If destroyed, do not disembark, instead enter Reserve."
Which means you must have been able to disembark in the first place.
Instead of eating roast beef, eat a salad.
Instead of shooting, use a PSA.
Instead of disembarking, enter Reserves.
I've never said there isnt timing involved. I've said that the S10 hit resolves before disembarking/placement. Which it does as you've shown.
The Night Scythe rule does nothing right now, actually - but assuming it works, you still take the hit before being placed into reserves.
14863
Post by: MasterSlowPoke
Does the wording change at all in the iPad codex? Apparently it lists Hyperphase Swords as AP3, so there could be all sorts of things missing from the FAQ in there.
49290
Post by: katfude
That'd be super bullcrap if they did a bunch of amendments via digital codex that aren't available in the FAQ. Wouldn't put it past GW, though.
9288
Post by: DevianID
Rigeld2, the codex reads differently than how you read it.
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve."
So first thing to note, the unit is not allowed to disembark anyway. Invasion beams only allow a disembark before or after the flyer moves. Whats more, as stated, you NEVER disembark from a flyer that is destroyed. Thus, 'you are not allowed to disembark,' as a condition put onto the embarked unit when the flyer is destroyed, really does nothing.
You seem to be reading it as "you are not allowed to disembark, and INSTEAD OF DISEMBARKING you are placed in reserve.'
If you read it that way, I agree that they take the hits. But that is not how it is worded, and in addition that is not how you get out of a flyer anyway. So the problem is if you DO read it that way it still doesn't work how you mention because you never disembark, and thus never go into reserve (as you link disembark timing with when you go into reserve)--instead you get placed within 3 inches of the template.
So actually, if your flyer gets destroyed, you get a negative condition put on you that does nothing in 6th (The embarked unit is not allowed to disembark--which they already are not allowed to do by virtue of being on a flyer that is zooming) and instead of not having that condition, aka the ability to disembark at the time of the flyers destruction, you go into reserves. This all resolves per the necron book 'When the transport is destroyed' and not after.
49408
Post by: McNinja
That's... pretty funny. A rule that technically does nothing.
60871
Post by: UndeadRobotSkeleton
While I do not have the FAQ, BRB, or dex in front of me, the rules have been quoted to death here. From these I can only come to the conclusion that it is sloppily written and will most likely get FAQ'd. What I suggest to anyone playing is this: If it is a friendly game, use it as RAI. Meaning no hits, put them in reserve. If you are in a tournament, ask the people running said tournament BEFORE playing. If your opponent is trying to rules lawyer it in a friendly game, pack up and play against someone else. At the end of the day, it is just a game. No need to get your panties in a bunch.
5394
Post by: reds8n
If we could please lay off the name calling and insults please.
Thanks.
Stay calm people 
47462
Post by: rigeld2
DevianID wrote:Rigeld2, the codex reads differently than how you read it.
It really doesn't. "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve."
Correct. So first thing to note, the unit is not allowed to disembark anyway. Invasion beams only allow a disembark before or after the flyer moves. Whats more, as stated, you NEVER disembark from a flyer that is destroyed. Thus, 'you are not allowed to disembark,' as a condition put onto the embarked unit when the flyer is destroyed, really does nothing.
Correct. You seem to be reading it as "you are not allowed to disembark, and INSTEAD OF DISEMBARKING you are placed in reserve.'
If you read it that way, I agree that they take the hits. But that is not how it is worded
Really? So what to you go to reserves instead of doing? and in addition that is not how you get out of a flyer anyway. So the problem is if you DO read it that way it still doesn't work how you mention because you never disembark, and thus never go into reserve (as you link disembark timing with when you go into reserve)--instead you get placed within 3 inches of the template.
Right, so the rule does nothing. Great! So actually, if your flyer gets destroyed, you get a negative condition put on you that does nothing in 6th (The embarked unit is not allowed to disembark--which they already are not allowed to do by virtue of being on a flyer that is zooming) and instead of not having that condition, aka the ability to disembark at the time of the flyers destruction, you go into reserves. This all resolves per the necron book 'When the transport is destroyed' and not after.
So your assertion is that the flyer is destroyed immediately upon rolling a wrecked result? That's not what the wrecked rules actually say. The unit must then take a Pinning test. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.
So a) the Night Scythe special rule literally does nothing, as you've shown b) even granting that it does, they don't go to reserves until after the vehicle is wrecked Either way, they take the STR10 hit. I bolded the important question here - you're asserting that you just ignore the word "instead". The word links the two requirements. Don't do A, instead do B. You're trying to do B when you're not allowed to do A anyway. Can I shoot a PSA during your turn? I edited this a lot. Sorry about that.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
The invasion beam wouldn't function if they were teleported after the ensuing explosion / therefore they don't take the hit.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
Except they are embarked. Any embarked units take the hit. You must be embarked to take the hit. This means that you take the hit before you "dont" disembark. If eveyone got to disembark (which is the requirement for us to be placed in reserve) before they took the hit, no one would take the hit. This is not grey, this is black and white.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dozer Blades wrote:The invasion beam wouldn't function if they were teleported after the ensuing explosion / therefore they don't take the hit.
The Invasion beam isnt what keeps them in reserve. That is what lets a non-hovering transport disembark its troops
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Except they are embarked. Any embarked units take the hit. You must be embarked to take the hit. This means that you take the hit before you "dont" disembark. If eveyone got to disembark (which is the requirement for us to be placed in reserve) before they took the hit, no one would take the hit. This is not grey, this is black and white.
They are not embarked. They are waiting to teleport. Read the fluff... It is what they base the rules upon.
49290
Post by: katfude
Dozer Blades wrote:They are not embarked. They are waiting to teleport. Read the fluff... It is what they base the rules upon.
...That's a very poor argument to make.
49408
Post by: McNinja
katfude wrote:Dozer Blades wrote:They are not embarked. They are waiting to teleport. Read the fluff... It is what they base the rules upon.
...That's a very poor argument to make.
The sad part is, he's right. The problem arises when you realize that whoever wrote the rule apparently had a stroke and forgot that Crash and Burn isn't Disembark and that the models still "inside" the Night Scythe still take the S10 hits. As it stands, we have a rule that literally does nothing, barring using the fluff as a means of rewriting the rule so it isn't fethin' dumb.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dozer Blades wrote:Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Except they are embarked. Any embarked units take the hit. You must be embarked to take the hit. This means that you take the hit before you "dont" disembark. If eveyone got to disembark (which is the requirement for us to be placed in reserve) before they took the hit, no one would take the hit. This is not grey, this is black and white.
They are not embarked. They are waiting to teleport. Read the fluff... It is what they base the rules upon.
They are embarked. If they weren't, the couldn't use Invasion Beams to disembark.
Ignore the fluff - fluff isn't actual rules. In YMDC we debate actual rules.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
They are not embarked and it says in the codex.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dozer Blades wrote:They are not embarked and it says in the codex.
So Invasion Beams does nothing, and it's not actually a Transport.
Oh, and can you point to a rule that says they're not embarked? The rules for a Night Scythe on page 51 of the Necron Codex says they are - "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark", "For the purposes of embarking and disembarking..."
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Hint - Check the FAQ.
649
Post by: Thanatos_elNyx
rigeld2 wrote:Ignore the fluff - fluff isn't actual rules.
Tell that to Mandrakes. 
49909
Post by: Luide
Dozer Blades wrote:They are not embarked and it says in the codex.
Dozer Blades wrote:Hint - Check the FAQ.
Hint: Check FAQ. You're absolutely wrong.
"Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase embarked upon a Night Scythe" (Necron FAQ, page 2)
Invasion Beams do absolutely nothing unless unit is embarked upon Night Scythe.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Please post a page and citation of this rule!
Please ignore this, It was directed towards the "THEY ARE NOT EMBARKED" comment. The FAQ CLEARLY STATES that they ARE!.
And as far as Sharpie Redacting you may as well take a SHARPIE to the Wound/Armor save/to hit/ and pretty much all other characteristic test based rules RULES in regards to the Space Marine fluff.
59198
Post by: SCvodimier
Still doesn't help your case... GW FAQ wrote: a unit that began it's Movement Phase embarked....
the FAQ still talks about the unit being embarked in the transport
Edit: damn, ninja'd
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dozer Blades wrote:Hint - Check the FAQ.
Hint: check it yourself. It states, under the entry for Invasion Beams, that an embarked unit is allowed to use them.
Or are you claiming Invasion Beams, your ONLY way of disembarking, cannot be used?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dozer Blades wrote:Hint - Check the FAQ.
That's amusing. As pointed out the FAQ supports me.
Care to quote an actual rule that supports them not being embarked? Automatically Appended Next Post: Dooley wrote:Please post a page and citation of this rule!
Which one? The Night Scythe one is page 51 of the Necron Codex - it's been quoted in this thread.
Crash and Burn (the source of the S10 hit) is page 81 in the BRB, bottom left corner.
60374
Post by: Dooley
Dooley wrote:Please post a page and citation of this rule!
Which one? The Night Scythe one is page 51 of the Necron Codex - it's been quoted in this thread.
Crash and Burn (the source of the S10 hit) is page 81 in the BRB, bottom left corner.
The "THEY ARE NOT EMBARKED SAYS SO IN THE RULE BOOK" part. He was trying to induce Fluff into rules. Which we ALL know is not the case. If it were Space Marines would all have feel no pain, Acute sences, and various other special rules.
I think this boils down to a situation were fluff and actual rules clash. Are the Necrons "ACTUALLY" on the NS? Fluff wise, NO, but according to the rules "YES" therefore all rules apply to them.. In a friendly game as long as it wasnt being abused I wouldnt really have a problem playing this way. However, taken OUT of your friendly group and trying to take it somewere where ALL rules are to be enforced and fabulous prizes are involved I think you get hit with the "THAT SUCKS STICK"
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I notice the FAQs are down. Wonder why...
19831
Post by: mch21689
Dozer Blades wrote:I notice the FAQs are down. Wonder why...
Back up on US site, no changes.
My 2 cents here:
Fluffwise / maybe RAI - They aren't actually there so the hit couldnt happen.
RAW and how it should be played until a possible FAQ - They take the S10 hit then go to reserve. The wording in the codex and FAQ both state they are embarked in the night scythe. The rulebook states when the vehicles explodes the passengers take the hits THEN disembark. Their rule says instead of disembarking they enter reserves instead. The main point being INSTEAD OF DISEMBARKING and not AS SOON AS THE SCYTHE IS DESTROYED.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Not a shock - the digital editions were updated recently, with entries not in the FAQ
49408
Post by: McNinja
They aren't down. Automatically Appended Next Post: mch21689 wrote:Dozer Blades wrote:I notice the FAQs are down. Wonder why...
Back up on US site, no changes.
My 2 cents here:
Fluffwise / maybe RAI - They aren't actually there so the hit couldnt happen.
RAW and how it should be played until a possible FAQ - They take the S10 hit then go to reserve. The wording in the codex and FAQ both state they are embarked in the night scythe. The rulebook states when the vehicles explodes the passengers take the hits THEN disembark. Their rule says instead of disembarking they enter reserves instead. The main point being INSTEAD OF DISEMBARKING and not AS SOON AS THE SCYTHE IS DESTROYED.
Crash and Burn does not say that the embarked models disembark. They are simply placed within 3" of the blast marker. The rule, as it is written, does nothing.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
You never place them within 3" pf the blast marker as they go right back into reserve. mch has the gist of it.
19831
Post by: mch21689
Crash and Burn states any models within the transport suffer a Str 10 hit with no armor saves. Survivors are then placed. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.
RAW - They are embarked on the scythe, therefore they are within it. So they take the S10 hit and then instead of being placed are put in reserve.
If you want to argue they are not physically "within", then I would argue you aren't disembarking then and since you have to go into reserve instead of disembarking (which isn't happening as the models are simply "placed") then unit doesnt enter reserves....it is placed on the field as normal making the rule do nothing.
Either way regardless of whether they go into reserve or deploy on the field because the rule does nothing, the unit still suffers the Str 10 hit.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
A lot of people here don't agree with you for what that is worth.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dozer Blades wrote:A lot of people here don't agree with you for what that is worth.
Can any of them provide actual rules support?
60406
Post by: captain-crud
Well its this easy the wasghiton GW stores say they go into reserves not taking a hit as that is were i play counting battle bunker its a done issue for me. Waiting to hear back from throne of bones but if its the same there really kinda will end debate.
53211
Post by: Necronmike
wow this thread just keeps going on.. I don't even have a night scythe yet so i'm not going to worry about it.. i'll stick with VOD, Ghost Ark, Monolith, and CCB as mode of transport for my stuff.
19831
Post by: mch21689
captain-crud wrote:Well its this easy the wasghiton GW stores say they go into reserves not taking a hit as that is were i play counting battle bunker its a done issue for me. Waiting to hear back from throne of bones but if its the same there really kinda will end debate.
It might be a done issue for you, but unfortunately a store employee is nowhere near an end all for all of us as a whole. At almost $50 a model I am sure the retail stores will side with whatever rule makes the model more appealing too. Not like you would want to drop the money on a scythe if RAW proved the special rule did in fact nothing?
I can guarantee if I drive to Indy and Chicago and ask people at every brick and mortar or bunker, I will come home with 2-3 different answers.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dozer Blades wrote:A lot of people here don't agree with you for what that is worth.
Except theyre disagreeing with no rules support.
Or at least, none that has been shown
16368
Post by: snakel
Can i ask why this argument never came up in the 5th ed ?
Because with 5th ed rule the Nightscythe exploded and with the take the hits sides argument you would have rolled for the guys in side to see how may took wounds and you would also have rolled for pinning yet it never was an issue .
Now Either way you look at it if as we believe the Dex was written with the 6th in mind why would the Nightscythe have this rule of going in to reserve other than to negate the hits ,as any other stance no matter how you use RAW makes no logical sense at all, other that to purposely hurt the necrons and no one else,
When RAW fails to be clear or when RAW contradicts logic ,it is logical to delve deeper to find the answer ,
Now if the rule is FAQ'ed and or the digital Dex is updated to state the Necrons do not take the hits where will that leave the RAW is law brigade ?because in doing so GW would have just been clarifying what the no hit side have been saying ,which would prove in this case that RAW as read by the take the hits side is wrong .
So RAW would then become useless since having been proved wrong how can we ever trust it again ? but since the game designers and codex writers have from the beginning of time expected people to use RAI ,RAW logic and commonsense to sort out rules issues it would prove RAW alone is not a good enough argument .
So we have 2 choices you can either sit and wait for GW to do your thinking for you and explain it exactly how you want (which would make this game unplayable), or you can use your own judgment based on all the evidence not just part of it(RAW ) and come to the correct conclusion based on all that evidence.
Since some people refuse to budge on there stance to this issue until told different by that elusive official ruling form the game designers this argument will not end untill that said official ruling .
OH and yes how many of the no hit brigade are willing to come here and admit they were wrong should it be proved that they are? as i will be happy to admit i am wrong should any future ruling prove that i am wrong
57035
Post by: jms40k
snakel wrote:Can i ask why this argument never came up in the 5th ed ?
Probably because the model wasn't out until shortly before 6th.
Your other arguments have been refuted in previous posts.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:Can i ask why this argument never came up in the 5th ed ?
It did locally.
Because with 5th ed rule the Nightscythe exploded and with the take the hits sides argument you would have rolled for the guys in side to see how may took wounds and you would also have rolled for pinning yet it never was an issue .
It did for some people.
Now Either way you look at it if as we believe the Dex was written with the 6th in mind why would the Nightscythe have this rule of going in to reserve other than to negate the hits ,as any other stance no matter how you use RAW makes no logical sense at all, other that to purposely hurt the necrons and no one else,
False. Having your unit go into reserve is not always a penalty.
When RAW fails to be clear or when RAW contradicts logic ,it is logical to delve deeper to find the answer ,
How is it not clear? How does it contradict logic?
Now if the rule is FAQ'ed and or the digital Dex is updated to state the Necrons do not take the hits where will that leave the RAW is law brigade ?because in doing so GW would have just been clarifying what the no hit side have been saying ,which would prove in this case that RAW as read by the take the hits side is wrong .
FAQs can change rules. Right now I'm not wrong.
OH and yes how many of the no hit brigade are willing to come here and admit they were wrong should it be proved that they are? as i will be happy to admit i am wrong should any future ruling prove that i am wrong
I am not wrong right now, as you can show me no rules that I am.
Should the rules change in the future that would obviously change how the rules read.
Rules changing in the future does not make me wrong now.
If you'd be happy to admit you're wrong in the future, why can you not admit you're wrong now?
49290
Post by: katfude
So let's go ahead and case closed this thing.
If the scythe crashes and burns, CURRENTLY, they take the hits, are PLACED on the table, and the special rule of entering reserves is useless per current RAW.
Does the RAW coincide with fluff? No.
Does this effect RAW? No.
Will this probably get FAQ'd? Yes.
For now, RAW does not support avoiding the hits OR entering back into reserve.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I made some bone headed mistakes what I said here. For that I apologize to everyone. Discussion of the rules needs honesty over bias. I will wait to see if there is a FAQ. I play foot armies so no big deal to me in regards to my own games. My apology again.
53985
Post by: TheKbob
Wow, what a dumb argument... valid kind of, but seriously, I think everyone I knew was expecting the dudes inside not to take any S10 hits.
The S10 hit is for "fall damage". They don't fall. If it was just an explosion, S4 and be done.... Hell, the fluff is 100% in support with the description. Normally I'm all about RAW, but since this is a giant cluster eff, yo, those guys aren't actually in there. They don't "asplode".
W/E, I'll play it as my FLGS plays it. This has to get FAQ'd, but knowing GW, they'll FAQ it opposite to the fluff and counter to sense (like Anrakyr in a CCB... CANT SEE CRAP, YO!)
49290
Post by: katfude
How is it dumb? We've come to a conclusion that obeys all game rules and can be used in tournament play. I don't care if you choose to play it differently. Heck, keep using all power weapons as AP2/1/ignores armor/whatever. That's fine.
You are, as notated in the forum itself and multiple times in this thread, in YMDC, where we only take RAW into account. The argument is not dumb if we don't come to the conclusion you want. Please don't post or just ignore YMDC if you don't care about that/will play however you want.
5459
Post by: Scott
I have never understood how individuals determine - within a unit entry - how to decide what are Rules and what is fluff.
Frankly, I don't believe - within a unit entry - that such a distinction can be easily made. It is my feeling that the entirety of the particular entry must be used to make a proper decision regarding how to play that particular unit.
Within the Night Scythes unit description, 1st column 3rd paragraph (which continues through the remainder of the paragraph at the top of the 2nd column) there is text which explicitly states that the Scythe "... mimics the ... role of a more conventional transport vehicle without jeopardising the existence of its assigned squad. If... 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."
Now I refer to p 80 of the main rule book and refer to what happens to passengers when a Transport is Wrecked or Explodes! to see that these entries include explanations of how to deal with embarked passengers.
Then I continue on to the rules for Crash and Burn on p 81. On p 81 is mentions models "within" suffering a S10 hit, etc, and finally it specifies how "Survivors" are to be placed.
I go back to the Scythe's rules and I determine that if my opponent is playing Necrons, I would tell him that his Jump Infantry or Bikes were never truly within the vehicle so they do not suffer the effects of passengers within more prosaic transports.
After all, the unit entry states that "...the embarked unit...", not the "survivors" of, are not allowed to disembark but instead enter reserves.
No damage, go to reserves.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
katfude wrote:How is it dumb? We've come to a conclusion that obeys all game rules and can be used in tournament play. I don't care if you choose to play it differently. Heck, keep using all power weapons as AP2/1/ignores armor/whatever. That's fine.
You are, as notated in the forum itself and multiple times in this thread, in YMDC, where we only take RAW into account. The argument is not dumb if we don't come to the conclusion you want. Please don't post or just ignore YMDC if you don't care about that/will play however you want.
The problem with your 'obeys all the game rules' is you are ignoring the 'the codex supercedes the main book' rule. That said, you've heard that one at least a couple of times from me personally, and a few more from other posters. Anyhow, by all means play as you wish.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Neorealist wrote:The problem with your 'obeys all the game rules' is you are ignoring the 'the codex supercedes the main book' rule.
The problem with your 'rule' is that it is not a rule, nor is it always true. There are times when the rulebook takes precedence.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote:katfude wrote:How is it dumb? We've come to a conclusion that obeys all game rules and can be used in tournament play. I don't care if you choose to play it differently. Heck, keep using all power weapons as AP2/1/ignores armor/whatever. That's fine.
You are, as notated in the forum itself and multiple times in this thread, in YMDC, where we only take RAW into account. The argument is not dumb if we don't come to the conclusion you want. Please don't post or just ignore YMDC if you don't care about that/will play however you want.
The problem with your 'obeys all the game rules' is you are ignoring the 'the codex supercedes the main book' rule. That said, you've heard that one at least a couple of times from me personally, and a few more from other posters. Anyhow, by all means play as you wish.
When there's a conflict. There's no conflict here.
You still haven't come forward with actual rules support to counter anything I've said - or did I miss it?
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Nah, i don't think i've really added anything new since i said that the nightscythe rule replaces the transport part of the 'crash and burn' rules and pointed out that RAW doesn't really support partially applying a rule unless a more advanced rule explicitly calls for it.
We argued for a while about wether or not it replaces the entire thing or just certain sections of it; but with no real indication in RAW regarding timing or wether or not the 'crash and burn' transport rules are all one rule, or 3-4 rules and if so what the timing is for applying the ones that don't conflict with the nightscythe one; so i more or less let it go until i noticed the poster quoted in my prior comment posted something that know to be against the rules as written.
In short i don't have anything new to add, i just wanted to note that the argument being stated was a bit flawed.
Edit:
Ghaz wrote:The problem with your 'rule' is that it is not a rule, nor is it always true. There are times when the rulebook takes precedence.
Oh and this is also wrong:
6th ed Rulebook, page 7 wrote:On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote: so i more or less let it go until i noticed the poster quoted in my prior comment posted something that know to be against the rules as written.
Like what?
In short i don't have anything new to add, i just wanted to note that the argument being stated was a bit flawed.
It's not, but okay.
60696
Post by: IGotBodied
Isn't there something about the spirit of the game taking precedence and rolling a d6 if you and your opponent do not agree on the interpenetration of the rule under General Principles of the rule book.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
rigeld2 wrote:Like what?
The part where they ignored the nightscythe rule in it's entirety in favour of applying the 'crash and burn' transport rules in 'their' entirety.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Like what?
The part where they ignored the nightscythe rule in it's entirety in favour of applying the 'crash and burn' transport rules in 'their' entirety.
Taken literally, the Night Scythe rule does nothing.
Disagree? When do you disembark?
That's right - a destroyed Night Scythe's contents don't disembark.
Oh you still want to go to reserves? You're supposed to do that instead of doing something else... What was that...
Oh, right - disembarking. Which you can't do.
Allowing you to go to reserve when the models are placed still puts it after the S10 hit.
You cannot replace the Crash n Burn rule in its entirety as a) you don't have anything that tells you too b) that would mean the Night Scythe never become a wreck.
What possible leg do you have left to stand on? Fluff?
58920
Post by: Neorealist
rigeld2 wrote:Taken literally, the Night Scythe rule does nothing.
Disagree? When do you disembark?
That's right - a destroyed Night Scythe's contents don't disembark.
Oh you still want to go to reserves? You're supposed to do that instead of doing something else... What was that...
Oh, right - disembarking. Which you can't do.
Allowing you to go to reserve when the models are placed still puts it after the S10 hit.
You cannot replace the Crash n Burn rule in its entirety as a) you don't have anything that tells you too b) that would mean the Night Scythe never become a wreck.
What possible leg do you have left to stand on? Fluff?
To Answer your questions in the order you posted them:
1) Yes.
2) You'll never disembark. (well, as part of resolving either rule anyway. i assumed you were writing from the perspective of the embarked unit and responded in kind)
3) When the Nightscythe is destroyed; so instead of taking a strength 10 no armor saves allowed hit, then being placed on the table within 3 inches of a blast marker, then being destroyed if you are unable to be placed. (i assumed you were writing from the perspective of the embarked unit and responded in kind)
4) No it does not.
5) The 'Codex trumps Basic book' rule and the 'Nightscythe Portal' rule tells you to.
6) I have two legs thank you, and they as of this date work quite well i'm relieved to say. That said, to literally answer your question? ' RAW'.
14
Post by: Ghaz
IGotBodied, you need to read the Tenets of the YMDC stickied at the top of the forum:
7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.
5841
Post by: Bylak
rigeld2 wrote:Neorealist wrote:
You still haven't come forward with actual rules support to counter anything I've said - or did I miss it?
You did. People on the pro side have been posting their own interpretations and you have chosen to ignore them or just be snide =P
Bylak wrote:rigeld2 wrote:does the "no hit" side want to post some actual rules that back their position up?
Sure! As pointed out by the poster I quoted . . .
digital Necron Codex (provided by a previous poster) wrote:"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).
pg. 81 wrote:If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, it's flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". And model under the blast marker's final position suffers a strength 6, AP - hit. The Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a strength 10 hit with no armour sames allowed.
If we're following the RAW and the order of operations on pg. 81 it'd go:
1) Flyer destroyed
2) unit enters reserve
3) large blast marker placed - scatters 2D6"
4) models under take str 6 AP - hit
5) Flyer taken off the board.
What I'm putting forward here (as suggested by a poster earlier in the thread, I just kind of elaborate) is that the unit is removed from the Night Scythe at the destroyed result roll before the blast marker scatters, not after taking the S10 hit.
3712
Post by: moosifer
So better question is, how does a unit in reserve take moral and pinning tests? If the NS picks up a squad of immortals with an attached overlord with a phase shifter and he makes his invuln, how does he make a moral check?
The RAW for this is pretty clear, if the NS is destroyed (you know rolling that pesky 6 on the damage chart) that triggers the unit goes back into reserve clause of the NS unit entry. No s10 hits, no fuming from your ears, just good old fashion goes back into reserve.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.
How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.
Your point number 5 - quote the words that are giving you that allowance you assert exists. Also, you continue to ignore things like the Night Scythe never wrecking if you ignore the entirety of that rule.
5841
Post by: Bylak
rigeld2 wrote:You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.
How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.
Your point number 5 - quote the words that are giving you that allowance you assert exists. Also, you continue to ignore things like the Night Scythe never wrecking if you ignore the entirety of that rule.
I'm just outlining the order of operations on page 81 there as I see the NS rule fitting in? Flyer gets destroyed result, models go into reserve, centre blast marker over model, blast marker scatters (blast marker I'm assuming replacing the Flyer, representing the wreck crashing into the ground), models under blast take hit, surviving models in Flyer (for generic transports) would take str 10 hit at this point.
Unless I'm not understanding what you're asking about here. Totally possible since I'm super tired!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Bylak wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
You still haven't come forward with actual rules support to counter anything I've said - or did I miss it?
You did. People on the pro side have been posting their own interpretations and you have chosen to ignore them or just be snide =P
You can think that. Or you can read the thread. Either way.
Bylak wrote:If we're following the RAW and the order of operations on pg. 81 it'd go:
1) Flyer destroyed
2) unit enters reserve
3) large blast marker placed - scatters 2D6"
4) models under take str 6 AP - hit
5) Flyer taken off the board.
What I'm putting forward here (as suggested by a poster earlier in the thread, I just kind of elaborate) is that the unit is removed from the Night Scythe at the destroyed result roll before the blast marker scatters, not after taking the S10 hit.
A) At step 2, what is allowing you to disembark?
A') if you're not allowed to disembark, why are you allowed to do something the rules say you can only do instead of disembarking?
B) Since you can't disembark, I'll still let you use the rule. Let's look at where it makes sense to apply it - it was limited to disembark before, right? So why are you trying to insert it before the unit is placed?
58920
Post by: Neorealist
rigeld2 wrote:You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.
How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.
You missed the first part of that rule, which states ' When the Nightscythe is destroyed...'
The 'Nightscythe Transport' rule replaces what happens when the vehicle is wrecked, not what happens when the unit tries to disembark from said wrecked vehicle. Being unable to disembark from it is an 'side-effect' of the Nightscythe rule, not a trigger.
5841
Post by: Bylak
The Night Scythe rule is allowing you to disembark >.< Well not disembarking rather, entering reserve. You're interpretation of the rule is that the unit leaving the NS happens at the str 10 hit, I'm suggesting that it happens when the destroyed result on the NS is rolled.
9288
Post by: DevianID
Taken literally, the Night Scythe rule does nothing.
I disagree here. Taken literally, the nightscythe rule telling you you are not allowed to disembark does nothing FURTHER. This is very different than what you are saying.
Again, to try and clarify what I have said before, the rule is:
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve."
Now, I am glad we currently all agree that you don't disembark from a Night Scythe.
However, the 'instead' is 'instead of being allowed to disembark.' This is VERY VERY different from 'instead of disembarking.' The rule does function, the only part that does nothing further is not being allowed to disembark, as you already can not disembark.
Its kind of like not being able to shoot at normal BS because your heavy weapon moved, and not being able to shoot at normal BS because you are targeting a flyer. In the case where you move AND shoot a flyer with a heavy weapon, the penalty (BS1) applies 2 times, but the second time does nothing FURTHER. Just like here, where being in a flyer means you are not allowed to disembark, and being in a destroyed night scythe means you are not allowed to disembark. The second disallowing of being able to disembark does nothing FURTHER.
Also, it was said that a flyer is not destroyed until after 'Crash and Burn' has completely resolved. This is incorrect. The rules on pg 74 tell us that the vehicle is destroyed before removing the vehicle or turning it into terrain. Crash and Burn does not change this.
Anyway, as I have said several times, the rule does not read that you go to reserve instead of disembarking. You are not allowed to disembark from a destroyed night scythe and instead go to reserve from a destroyed night scythe (which happens when the night scythe is destroyed).
49408
Post by: McNinja
moosifer wrote:So better question is, how does a unit in reserve take moral and pinning tests? If the NS picks up a squad of immortals with an attached overlord with a phase shifter and he makes his invuln, how does he make a moral check?
The RAW for this is pretty clear, if the NS is destroyed (you know rolling that pesky 6 on the damage chart) that triggers the unit goes back into reserve clause of the NS unit entry. No s10 hits, no fuming from your ears, just good old fashion goes back into reserve.
Nope. First, the night scythe can't "pick up" anything, a unit has to start in the night scythe. Second, the rule says you go to reserves instead of disembarking. You never disembark. Crash and burn does is not disembarking. The night scythe transport rule, as it is written, does nothing.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neorealist wrote:rigeld2 wrote:You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.
How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.
You missed the first part of that rule, which states ' When the Nightscythe is destroyed...'
The 'Nightscythe Portal' rule replaces what happens when the vehicle is wrecked, not what happens when the unit tries to disembark from said wrecked vehicle. Being unable to disembark from it is an 'effect' of the Nightscythe rule, not a trigger.
I didn't miss that at all, thanks.
So you continue to assert that the Night Scythe doesn't become a wreck? If you're replacing CnB in its entirety, you've just created the biggest loophole for an invincible unit I've ever seen.
When it's destroyed, you don't disembark, you go into reserves.
If A then !B and C.
If you cannot apply !B, C cannot apply either.
5841
Post by: Bylak
EDIT: Gods dammit why does this keep happening t'nite >.< Ignore this post.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Nope, the vehicle is wrecked just fine. What i'm asserting is that the unit goes into reserves as a result of that rather than applying the 'crash and burn' rules as they apply to transports.
9288
Post by: DevianID
When it's destroyed, you don't disembark, you go into reserves.
If A then !B and C.
If you cannot apply !B, C cannot apply either.
See my post 2 above yours. Your logic is flawed here, as you keep using disembark as your timing. B, in your example, is NOT DISEMBARK. It is the debuff 'not allowed to disembark.' The same debuff found on zooming flyers. It applies the entire time after the vehicle is destroyed, NOT JUST WHEN DISEMBARKING.
49408
Post by: McNinja
Except that we aren't disembarking anyway, so the rule allows us to do something (go to reserves) instead of something else (disembark) which we can't do anyway.
Crash and Burn is not disembarking. The rule does not allow for a dismebark, it spells out what happens, and it certainly is not a disembark. If you can't do the first part, you can't do the second part, making the rule pointless.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
McNinja wrote:Except that we aren't disembarking anyway, so the rule allows us to do something (go to reserves) instead of something else (disembark) which we can't do anyway.
Crash and Burn is not disembarking. The rule does not allow for a dismebark, it spells out what happens, and it certainly is not a disembark. If you can't do the first part, you can't do the second part, making the rule pointless.
Oh sweet emperor on his throne, i'm impressed with the resiliance of both this thread and the above stance.
I'm going to endeaver to state this definitively, so please excuse the huge font in advance:
The 'Nightscythe Transport' rules trigger when the vehicle is destroyed. Wether or not the models embarked on it are disembarking as a result of some other rule is Completely Irrelevant to the application of the 'Nightscythe Transport' rules apart from the fact that they prevent you from doing it (disembarking) if you were otherwise going to.
To use some pseudo code:
Correct:
IF
(the vehicle is destroyed)
THEN
(you may not disembark the models on it)
AND
(put the models embarked on it in reserve)
Incorrect:
IF
(you are disembarking models as a result of the vehicle being destroyed)
THEN
(you may not disembark the models on it)
AND
(put the models embarked on it in reserve)
Hopefully the above clears some things up?
49408
Post by: McNinja
Neorealist wrote:McNinja wrote:Except that we aren't disembarking anyway, so the rule allows us to do something (go to reserves) instead of something else (disembark) which we can't do anyway.
Crash and Burn is not disembarking. The rule does not allow for a dismebark, it spells out what happens, and it certainly is not a disembark. If you can't do the first part, you can't do the second part, making the rule pointless.
Oh sweet emperor on his throne, i'm impressed with the resiliance of both this thread and the above stance.
I'm going to endeaver to state this definitively, so please excuse the huge font in advance:
The 'Nightscythe Transport' rules trigger when the vehicle is destroyed. Wether or not the models embarked on it are disembarking as a result of some other rule is Completely Irrelevent to the application of the 'Nightscythe Transport' rules apart from the fact that they prevent you from doing it (disembarking) if you were otherwise going to.
How do you know that's the Emperor on the throne? Chaos Space Marines call it the false emperor for a reason.
Actually, just after i posted that I considered simply ignoring that part about disembarking.
This is why you don't write codices with a future edition in mind, people.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
I concur, it could have been worded better to mesh with the 'Crash and Burn Transport' rules and 6th ed in general.
I suspect it was not as clear as it could have been as referencing those rules too closely would let the 'cat out of the bag' (so to speak) about what goodies 6th edition had in store for flyers and wouldn't have been too relevant in 5th ed.
Still that is little excuse not to issue a comprehensive FAQ that actually covers this sort of thing rather than the half-full and half-baked FAQ we currently have after the new material was released.
49290
Post by: katfude
Neo, thank you for the concise and terminology laced argument to the opposite standpoint.
Based on the wording of crash and burn, the vehicle is first destroyed. It is then taken off the table. Based on codex terminology, the unit goes to reserves at this point and the "may not disembark" terminology is ambiguous.
Therefore, the embarked unit is already in reserves when the template is placed and therefore does not take any hits.
14701
Post by: Brother Ramses
Just a thought,
How does the Necron unit taking a strength 10 hit prevent them from still going into reserves when the flyer is destroyed?
Here is the thing about this argument,
One side is freely admitting that yes the Necron unit does go into reserves, albeit after taking the str 10 hit, thus fulfilling all sets of rules pertaining to flyers, destroyed flyer transports, embarked passengers, and the NS rules.
The other side seems to only want to acknowledge the rules as they pertain to NS flyers.
So one argument incorporates all the rules and ther other cherry picks the most advantageous.
49408
Post by: McNinja
Brother Ramses wrote:Just a thought,
How does the Necron unit taking a strength 10 hit prevent them from still going into reserves when the flyer is destroyed?
Here is the thing about this argument,
One side is freely admitting that yes the Necron unit does go into reserves, albeit after taking the str 10 hit, thus fulfilling all sets of rules pertaining to flyers, destroyed flyer transports, embarked passengers, and the NS rules.
The other side seems to only want to acknowledge the rules as they pertain to NS flyers.
So one argument incorporates all the rules and ther other cherry picks the most advantageous.
Nope.
One side incorporates the rules in one way, the other side, another way. Both are technically legal, but (coming full circle here now) I'm thinking the no S10 hit side has the edge, mainly because nothing in the Flyers section mentions anything whatsoever about disembarking, making that little part of the rule rather pointless and wholly meaningless.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
McNinja wrote:One side incorporates the rules in one way, the other side, another way. Both are technically legal, but (coming full circle here now) I'm thinking the no S10 hit side has the edge, mainly because nothing in the Flyers section mentions anything whatsoever about disembarking, making that little part of the rule rather pointless and wholly meaningless.
I'm pretty sure the 'may not disembark' part of it it is a hold-over from 5th edition where the nightscythe was a more ordinary transport. If i recall correctly you would have been required to perform an emergency disembarkation if the transport was destroyed in that edition?
In 6th though given it is now a 'flyer' which doesn't have the 'hover' special rule? It's pretty much moot wether or not you can disembark from it when it blows up since you can 'never' disembark from it under any normal circumstances that you could find it in play anyway; which is why i think they wrote up that 'invasion beams' rule which has been hastily FAQed for it so it now 'sort of' works properly.
I really wish they'd thought to include a way to put a unit back on it; sort of makes the ability to carry things that cannot take it as a dedicated transport and start the game in it a waste of rules-text at the moment.
49290
Post by: katfude
Fluff-wise, it's an INVASION beamer, not a "run away! beamer". 
Rules-wise, how did the vehicle explodes! result read in 5th? Did it have the disembark or place terminology?
16368
Post by: snakel
rigeld2 wrote:
I am not wrong right now, as you can show me no rules that I am.
Should the rules change in the future that would obviously change how the rules read.
Rules changing in the future does not make me wrong now.
If you'd be happy to admit you're wrong in the future, why can you not admit you're wrong now?
So for you RAW is always right even when future FAQ's don't support how you read RAW .
So in other words if the rule is written clearer to show what the original RAW was meant to mean, and that meaning is different from what you interpreted RAW to mean you say you are not wrong ?????
If you need GW to hold your hand and tell you everything to do you will be waiting a very long time .
What a person writes and how they read what they wrote, does make you wrong because you are refusing to budge even when you are told in future FAQ'S the original wording was not clear and what you thought it to meant was in fact wrong
I will state it again RAW alone is not enough RAW with RAI,logic and commonsense is.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
I am not wrong right now, as you can show me no rules that I am.
Should the rules change in the future that would obviously change how the rules read.
Rules changing in the future does not make me wrong now.
If you'd be happy to admit you're wrong in the future, why can you not admit you're wrong now?
So for you RAW is always right even when future FAQ's don't support how you read RAW .
Correct. Because FAQs can change rules. So if the FAQ changes how the rules work, then that new method is correct.
So in other words if the rule is written clearer to show what the original RAW was meant to mean, and that meaning is different from what you interpreted RAW to mean you say you are not wrong ?????
I'm not wrong right now, and a change to the rules doesn't retroactively make me wrong. If the rules change and I still hold the (old) opinion, I'd be wrong then.
X=1. What is X+1? Right now it's 2. If you change X to 2, that doesn't make my former answer incorrect. It just means the answer is now 3.
I will state it again RAW alone is not enough RAW with RAI,logic and commonsense is.
Perhaps YMDC is not for you.
16368
Post by: snakel
Sorry again we disagree if a rule is made clear for those of us unable to see past the exact wording so that is now reflects how it was meant to be read from the beginning then yes you are wrong .
In this case the rule has not changed just the original meaning of it has been spelt out for those unable to grasp it
If the person who wrote the rule came to your house and said sorry mate the Necrons don't take the hit your reading the rules to literally and the codex clearly shows that your understanding of RAW is wrong, would you argue then that you were right?
If the wording is changed to show how the rule should be used its only the wording not the rule that has changed .
But alas until the wording is change or the codex wording is updated you will say they take the hits, because after all if the rules say a cat is a dog ,if it barks, then that must be right !
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
Unfortunatly, black and white RAW takes precedence over RAI. For a while my sisters vehicles didnt get the benefit from shield of faith b/c vehicles couldnt take invul saves. I didnt like it, but I had to accept it. Black and white RAW is superior to RAI every day no matter how little sense it makes.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:If the person who wrote the rule came to your house and said sorry mate the Necrons don't take the hit your reading the rules to literally and the codex clearly shows that your understanding of RAW is wrong, would you argue then that you were right?
But the codex does not clearly show that my understanding is wrong.
If he told me to my face that I was wrong, I'd tell him to publish an FAQ - because despite what you think I'm not the only one that thinks this way.
But alas until the wording is change or the codex wording is updated you will say they take the hits, because after all if the rules say a cat is a dog ,if it barks, then that must be right !
Yes. I play according to the rules for this game. I try not to insert a bias or intent when reading a rule.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
And that is how YMDC is supposed to be debated. I am a necrons player, yet I still belive that they should take the hits. We do not get special treatment b/c our fluff says we do. If that was the case then every fight would be a stalemate becasue no army cna be defeated in fluff.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Unfortunatly, black and white RAW takes precedence over RAI. For a while my sisters vehicles didnt get the benefit from shield of faith b/c vehicles couldnt take invul saves. I didnt like it, but I had to accept it. Black and white RAW is superior to RAI every day no matter how little sense it makes.
i think we've already covered how one reasonable interpretation of RAW precludes taking the hit, and another (again, reasonable) interpretation of RAW indicates the hit is resolved.
I believe the conclusion that was reached indicates that since you remove the Nightscythe from the table prior to the unit inside taking a hit, the models that were formerly inside it would already be in reserve by the time you'd otherwise apply the 'Crash and Burn' fall from the sky damage via a method of applying the 'codex > basic rulebook' rule and a few reasonable assumptions about the timing.
I'm not sure what the some of the above posters are still debating about, but they seem happy to continue do so.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
And I am content to play as I always have until this crops up in one of my games. 
58920
Post by: Neorealist
As you should and more power to you for doing so; i just hope i answered your question efficently.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW
The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
As rough as he put it, nos is correct. I think everyone is at their wits end arguing this and as bad as it seems, it looks like we are stuck taking the hits just a little longer. It will change, but until it does, we must be patient.
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW
The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.
yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:As rough as he put it, nos is correct. I think everyone is at their wits end arguing this and as bad as it seems, it looks like we are stuck taking the hits just a little longer. It will change, but until it does, we must be patient.
I think that the fact several post have out lined Their reading of RAW to say no hits, proves that Nos is not correct by RAW nor by RAW is my no hit correct , and since both can be seen as correct or not (depends on how YOU read it ), RAW in this case cannot alone sort out the argument
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
But the codex does not clearly show that my understanding is wrong.
If he told me to my face that I was wrong, I'd tell him to publish an FAQ - because despite what you think I'm not the only one that thinks this way.
Yes but he would have showed that you read the rule wrong and giving you an FAQ so you had it in BW would only clarify that. not change the rule
4001
Post by: Compel
I take it noone else plays "if a rule is sufficiently unclear, (eg, causing an 8 page thread) the disadvantage goes to the owning player?"
49408
Post by: McNinja
The problem is that unclear rules should be brought up to GW and FAQ'd immediately, not six months later, which GW has a habit of doing. I find it funny and a bit sad that ten days into 6th edition we have a mostly broken rule, as it refers to actions that cannot be performed by the vehicle, then instructs you to do something else.
59198
Post by: SCvodimier
snakel wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW
The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.
yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vindicare-Obsession wrote:As rough as he put it, nos is correct. I think everyone is at their wits end arguing this and as bad as it seems, it looks like we are stuck taking the hits just a little longer. It will change, but until it does, we must be patient.
I think that the fact several post have out lined Their reading of RAW to say no hits, proves that Nos is not correct by RAW nor by RAW is my no hit correct , and since both can be seen as correct or not (depends on how YOU read it ), RAW in this case cannot alone sort out the argument
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
But the codex does not clearly show that my understanding is wrong.
If he told me to my face that I was wrong, I'd tell him to publish an FAQ - because despite what you think I'm not the only one that thinks this way.
Yes but he would have showed that you read the rule wrong and giving you an FAQ so you had it in BW would only clarify that. not change the rule
two things
1) Even if the FAQ creates expresses the way GW interprets the rules, it owns and writes the rules for the game, so it is no longer RAI, it is RAW, because GW has essentially said "This is how this rule works" not "this is how we feel the rule should work
2) I would take others' advice and steer clear of YMDC. This isn't as much of a "here are how you have to play the rules at your local games" (since I am sure about 99% of the people here either talk to their opponent or see what the TO says on the matter), but more of a "What is GW actually telling you to do with these rules?"
Please correct if I am wrong on either thing, but your are just making the wrong argument in the wrong sub-forum
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
snakel wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW
The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.
yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded
And how will you know that? Given they *very* rarely explain *how* they want something to work? When they change the rules so that no-hits, will you claim this was a clarification of intent?
You do realise that is a cant win situation, yet?
Oh, and others never disproved anything. They never used " RAW", a phrase you over use.
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:snakel wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW
The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.
yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded
And how will you know that? Given they *very* rarely explain *how* they want something to work? When they change the rules so that no-hits, will you claim this was a clarification of intent?
You do realise that is a cant win situation, yet?
Oh, and others never disproved anything. They never used " RAW", a phrase you over use.
1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .
2 If wording is changed to show how i read them in the first place to be right how can the rule be changed
3 Do you realize this is a no win situation also ?until FAQ'ED of-course
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .
Rules As Written.
Also, if the wording changes the rule changes. Not sure how that's hard to understand.
49616
Post by: grendel083
snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .
That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.
46566
Post by: Beer4TheBeerGod
This came up in a recent game with my buddy. RAW it's pretty obvious they take the damage. RAI it's stupid and they shouldn't. It was our first game of 6th so we went RAW, but agreed it was dumb. Pretty sure it'll get FAQ'd away.
16368
Post by: snakel
grendel083 wrote:snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .
That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.
Pedantic lot tonight
Rules as written have to be read making them rules as read otherwise how can you know the rules if you cant read them ?
49290
Post by: katfude
Your interpretation of the very definition of raw shows me you rely heavily on rai. That is fine. It its not fine, however, for ymdc.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Spot on in your observation.
49616
Post by: grendel083
snakel wrote:grendel083 wrote:snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .
That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.
Pedantic lot tonight
Rules as written have to be read making them rules as read otherwise how can you know the rules if you cant read them ?
If the rules have been read, then they've been interpreted. One persons interpretation (or reading) of the rules can vary between another. Hence these arguments. That's why we try to use the strict wording as its written, and not by interpretation.
40691
Post by: greatergoodjones
I have to say, RAW, it seems that they would take the hits.
I do have to say that I would let opponent just put them back into reserve without them, however. It seems very unsportsmen like to make them take the wounds when it is very clear they weren't intended to.
47494
Post by: GiantSlingshot
Alright, So, I am unsure if this one has been addressed yet, but has anyone noticed that in the wrecked flyers section of the BRB, it never allows the transported unit to "Disembark"? It simply instructs you to "place" surviving the models within 3" of where the blast template lands. To be clear, It defines disembarking (or emergency disembarking) as the way one would escape a wrecked vehicle (moving out from access points up to 3") or leave an intact vehicle (moving out from access points up to 6").
For destroyed fliers or exploding regular transports, it just has you placing models.
Now, the Nightscythe rule states that "The embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but must instead be put into reserve." Now, from the strict interpretation of RAW that this board tends to adhere, is the nightscythe special rule completely obsolete until it's FAQ'd?
As a necron player, I can certainly see that this rule is worded to contradict the intention of the writer. I can deal with that for the time being. However, It seems like it's a double whammy that RP rolls cannot be made for a unit off the field. (Because you can't "place the model in coherency" with something that isn't currently in play). However, if the survivors are placed on the field, as RAW would seem to require, then RP rolls are peachy keen.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
snakel wrote:grendel083 wrote:snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .
That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.
Pedantic lot tonight
Rules as written have to be read making them rules as read otherwise how can you know the rules if you cant read them ?
Rules as Written, not as interpreted by you.
You dont "read" them, you instead parse the words to divine the meaning of the sentence. Which we HAVE been doing, and you have instead been interpreting A meaning despite it not being what is written
61010
Post by: Thaccus
Thank you guys for this discussion, it has been an interesting and informative and actually incited me to make a forum account so that I may join. After reading the entire thread and following along in the relevant codices, I feel that progress is being made, but a few points have been left a bit unclear.
To start I would like to put out a summary of points I believe we have established. This should make clear anything we need to reopen.
We have seen evidence of of the vehicle being defined as passengers under dedicated transport(BRB:78).
We have seen evidence for advanced rules override the contradicting basic rule in cases where they conflict(BRB:7). On this same page we have seen all rules in codices defined as advanced as well as the direct statement "the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence" In regards to BRB-Codex conflicts.
We have seen precedence for partial replacement of rules. With Grand Master Mordrak's First to the Fray(GK Codex:40) and Deep Strike(BRB:36). I would like to add that this is a weak precedence as First to the Fray directly references the rule it overwrites/conflicts with and NS Transport does not. A better precedence should be found and I don't doubt they are out there. As this is the only precedence put foreward for or against the matter it must be used.
We have established that "In stead" refers to "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark"(Necron Codex:51) And also that disembarkation does not happen within crash and burn(BRB:81).
We have established that "If the Night Scythe is destroyed" means the trigger for implementing the NS rule is NS destruction and not disembarkation(BRB:81).
If anything above is not clear we need to discuss it further.
Below are things are still unclear to me and I believe are still a bit unclear in general. If we could I would like to see these discussed thoroughly and pedantically. I have provided a basis for and argument below each as a base, this is purely a jumping point and does not mean that I promote either side.
Does the partial rule override include "Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties"? Although the sentence was written with the intention of referring to the above statement, that statement is "override[n]" by the advanced rule in the NS entry as it directly conflicts. The NS rule does not directly conflict with the statement in question unless we say that it was intended to correlate to the overridden statement. Intentions are irrelevant here. Furthermore, is the unit already in reserves by the time this part of the rule would apply and can you "place" a unit while it is in reserves?
What defines a vehicle being destroyed? The only reference to destroyed within Resolving Damage(BRB:74) is weapon destroyed. Do we use dictionary terms here? Can we do that in YMDC? Do we use OED or Merriam Webster? If we define it as destroyed when it takes the wrecking hit, then the rules for NS enact before CnB comes into play. The first line of the rule CnB says "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down on the battlefield." Does it count as destroyed then? Is this even part of the "rule" or is it fluff? Clearly its within the rule section. Does this means we must break our model, light it on fire, and then throw it at our board? Do we have precedence for fluff within rules elsewhere? how then do we define what is rule and what is fluff? What about when the model is removed from the table? Surely it is destroyed then as it no longer even exists as a unit. If destroyed is never defined in BRB and we can't use dictionary definitions; is it ever destroyed? Does the NS rule even get applied at all?
From where does being a passenger confer embarked? If it does not, then does the NS rule apply?
I hope I have pushed this thread in an interesting direction or two and I look forward to a long and underhandedly rude post form rigeld2. Cheers
46128
Post by: Happyjew
GiantSlingshot wrote:Alright, So, I am unsure if this one has been addressed yet, but has anyone noticed that in the wrecked flyers section of the BRB, it never allows the transported unit to "Disembark"? It simply instructs you to "place" surviving the models within 3" of where the blast template lands. To be clear, It defines disembarking (or emergency disembarking) as the way one would escape a wrecked vehicle (moving out from access points up to 3") or leave an intact vehicle (moving out from access points up to 6").
This has been addressed. Since you do not disembark, you cannot be put in reserves instead of disembarking. At least that is the argument.
47372
Post by: Vindicare-Obsession
Adressed and rejected with no rules reference.
61010
Post by: Thaccus
Happyjew wrote:GiantSlingshot wrote:Alright, So, I am unsure if this one has been addressed yet, but has anyone noticed that in the wrecked flyers section of the BRB, it never allows the transported unit to "Disembark"? It simply instructs you to "place" surviving the models within 3" of where the blast template lands. To be clear, It defines disembarking (or emergency disembarking) as the way one would escape a wrecked vehicle (moving out from access points up to 3") or leave an intact vehicle (moving out from access points up to 6").
This has been addressed. Since you do not disembark, you cannot be put in reserves instead of disembarking. At least that is the argument.
Disembarking is not the trigger for being put into reserves. The rule states "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but in stead enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike)"
There have been several people who have made it very clear in the previous pages of this thread that this defines destruction as the trigger and not disembarkation. I shall attempt this again as it is clearly not understood yet.
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed" Is the trigger condition for the following actions. Once this condition has been met, the following rules are immediately in effect.
"the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark" Is an immediate removal of the unit's ability to disembark. This is not an action, it is a removal of possible future action(that will not happen anyhow). In no way does this change when this rule is put into effect.
"but in stead" This is where I assume most of the confusion comes from. In stead is defined as "as a substitute or equivalent". We are substituting the unit's old disembarkation allowance for the following effect. In no way does this change when the Night Scythe rule is put into effect either.
"enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike)" Is an immediate change of the units status as passengers on the Night Scythe to units in reserve. The parentheses disallow deep striking at any time during (a new condition) the arrival of the unit affected by this rule. This section only changes when one effect happens, the disallowance of deep strike. In no way does it change when the Night Scythe rule is put into effect in any other way.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Thaccus wrote:"but instead" This is where I assume most of the confusion comes from. In stead is defined as "as a substitute or equivalent". We are substituting the unit's old disembarkation allowance for the following effect. In no way does this change when the Night Scythe rule is put into effect either.
Substituting would still require the disembark to be possible. RAW, it's not. There is no disembarkation allowance, therefore you can't enter reserves.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Exactly. Instead of disembarking, you do X. If disembarking is not possible, you dont get to do X
61010
Post by: Thaccus
The old disembarkation allowance of NO is still a state of disembarkation allowance. This is substitutable. The fact that it is redundant and/or irrelevant does not make it nonexistent.
edit: nonexistant is not a word 
edit 2: Neither is nonexsitent
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Except they do not disembark, they do something else entirely. You cannot substitute because disembarking never happens.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I don't think anyone is going to change anyone elses mind at this point. Sticka fork in it - its done.
61010
Post by: Thaccus
Do and can are not the same.
Again you are not substituting disembarkation. Disembarkation itself is not part of the NS special rule. You are substituting whether or not it is allowed to disembark. Even if it is not relevant or possible it is still not allowed to disembark RAW. The fact that is not allowed to disembark can be substituted for something else.
It also comes to my attention that what you substitute is irrelevant. You can quite easily substitute nothing for something and something for nothing. You do not need it to be possible, it does not even need to make sense
Given the nature of "in stead" we could just as easily substitute "banana" for "enters reserve" and enters reserve would still apply despite the banana never having a rule.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
Thaccus wrote:Given the nature of "in stead" we could just as easily substitute "banana" for "enters reserve" and enters reserve would still apply despite the banana never having a rule.
I like the way you think. i agree too! (though i suspect you meant to substitute 'banana' for "cannot disembark")
nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they do not disembark, they do something else entirely. You cannot substitute because disembarking never happens.
The rule does not require you to be able to substitute anything. Being 'unable to disembark' is an (wholly redundant as of 6th ed) effect of the rule, not the trigger for it.
Your models do not have to be disembarking in order to apply the 'Nightyscythe Transport' rule in it's entirety, the vehicle just has to have been destroyed in some way.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Let is rest in piece now.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
It seems a lot of people are working to hard to interpret one or two sentences that they are missing a pretty key thing here:
"Unlike the armoured carriers employed by other races, the Night Scythe does not have a transport compartment as such. Instead, it deploys troops by means of a captive wormhole whose far end is anchored on a distant Tomb World."
...
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed, its payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established... this is preferable to them being destroyed outright as they can join the campaign's later stages"
-Necron Codex 'Night Scythe' p. 51
If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed.
-BRB 'Flyers - Crash and Burn' p. 81
It clearly explains in the Necron codex that unlike other transports, they do not actually carry their passengers, that their passengers are isolated from the battle. There are no models within, so there are no S10 hits.
The codex contains the rules for Necrons, not a single sentence that people are agonizing over. GW spent an entire paragraph explaining just how devoid of embarked passengers a Night Scythe is. I think reading it would have been a much better use of your time than essentially nine pages of "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU UNLESS IT'S RAW"*
*(please note that in this case, RAW happens to be the parts of the book you decided are RAW... so who's interpreting rules now?)
47462
Post by: rigeld2
That would be a great argument.
So no models are embarked, right? I mean, they can't be if the Scythe doesnt actually carry any inside.
If you're going to try and argue that those paragraphs are rules rather than fluff... Have fun. Let me know so I can start killing thousands of orcs with a single Marine, or sucking an entire Craftworld dry with a single 90 point model.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
You are correct that no models are ever embarked on a Night Scythe. In the portions that it mentions them embarking or disembarking, they are using a known mechanic to try and explain why the models suddenly disappear from the table.
49616
Post by: grendel083
Fearspect wrote:You are correct that no models are ever embarked on a Night Scythe. In the portions that it mentions them embarking or disembarking, they are using a known mechanic to try and explain why the models suddenly disappear from the table.
Fluff-wise you're correct. No models are actually inside.
Rules-wise they're treated as being inside the Night Scythe just like any other transport.
Nothing in the rules (note: rules, not background) says to treat it differently.
Different rules for disembarking, but nothing to say they aren't considered 'inside' the transport,
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fearspect wrote:You are correct that no models are ever embarked on a Night Scythe. In the portions that it mentions them embarking or disembarking, they are using a known mechanic to try and explain why the models suddenly disappear from the table.
Except the rules state they are embarked, and that they disembark. In the actual rules of the game, those models are embarked.
FLuff is not always rules, especially when the rules specifically cover the situation.
Also - i gather you havent read the thread, as this fluff argument has been posted pretty much every page. Please have the courtesy of not just jumping in with both feet with the same, discredited argument.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
Rules wise they are not treated as being inside. Codex trumps BRB. Models in reserve do not take Str 10 hits. Models that are on the table take a Str 10 hit.
You can not change the rules for your own advantage. What does the FAQ say about the deployment of Necron Troops from the Night Scythe. Nothing.
So if the new FAQ says nothing then the Codex overrides the BRB. This is not new.
A downed NS will always put it's passengers into reserve. They are not taking Str 10 hit.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
MJThurston wrote:Rules wise they are not treated as being inside. Codex trumps BRB. Models in reserve do not take Str 10 hits. Models that are on the table take a Str 10 hit.
Since you said "rules-wise" you must be able to cite a rule backing that up, right?
You can not change the rules for your own advantage. What does the FAQ say about the deployment of Necron Troops from the Night Scythe. Nothing.
Nothing? So the entry that says to add Invasion Beams which refers to embarked models disembarking is "Nothing."?
So if the new FAQ says nothing then the Codex overrides the BRB. This is not new.
Besides the insulting tone you're implying there isn't an actual rule in the codex that overrides anything in the BRB except placement.
A downed NS will always put it's passengers into reserve. They are not taking Str 10 hit.
The first sentence is correct. The second has no rules support.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
Codex trumps BRB. Show me where that is not in the BRB.
Oh it is. So you go by the codex when it comes to placing the troops out of the NS.
What are you arguing? You make them take a Str 10 hit and then back into reserve. LOL. That's funny.
So these results in the new rules equal destroyed. Rolling a 6 on the damage table, reducing the model to 0 hull points and Crash and Burn.
If a NS gets any of the above results, any unit that has not deployed from a NS go into reserve.
As for RAW. Not allowed to disembark. So if they can't disembark they do what? Just die? No they go into reserve.
So by RAW, BRB = Codex trumps BRB.
So by RAW. Units in NS do not disembark but go into reserve.
Now we have RAW and RAI both saying the same thing.
Another fishing trip with no fish.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
MJThurston wrote:Oh it is. So you go by the codex when it comes to placing the troops out of the NS.
Right, instead of disembarking they go into reserve. Show me where models disembark in a crash and burn.
What are you arguing? You make them take a Str 10 hit and then back into reserve. LOL. That's funny.
I'm glad I amuse you?
If a NS gets any of the above results, any unit that has not deployed from a NS go into reserve.
That's not what the rules actually say.
As for RAW. Not allowed to disembark. So if they can't disembark they do what? Just die? No they go into reserve.
That's not what the rules actually say.
So by RAW. Units in NS do not disembark but go into reserve.
So by RAW. Units from the Tyranid codex never suffer wounds.
See? I can say something is RAW when it actually has no rules backing as well.
Another fishing trip with no fish.
Yes, you're millions of times more brilliant and well read than any of us. We should bow down to your greatness and apologize for even considering starting this discussion.
Or, you could try to be less offensive when you post. Either way really.
16368
Post by: snakel
LOL I thought this thread was dead ,with both sides agreeing to disagree
This rule and the argument, only really matters to you and who you play ,people know what i think and for me, its easy as every person i play reads it the same as me 
To continue arguing just to prove who is right so you can say" ha ha ha you were wrong" is pointless.
Raw has been use to prove both sides are right which proves RAW is read differently by people, again proving this argument cannot be won 
2325
Post by: MJThurston
Lets go over order.
Flier takes a hit that destroys it.
Passengers go to reserve.
A blast template is put on the table and scatters
Model in the template take Str 10 hits.
No models are in the template so they do not take a Str 10 hit.
Pretty Clear to me.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
MJThurston wrote:Lets go over order.
Flier takes a hit that destroys it.
Passengers go to reserve.
Can you cite why you're doing this at this step?
A blast template is put on the table and scatters
Model in the template take Str 10 hits.
No models are in the template so they do not take a Str 10 hit.
That's not how the actual rules work. Perhaps familiarize yourself with them?
2325
Post by: MJThurston
I'm sorry, it's a Str 6 hit for the Large Blast Template.
I have to eat some more crow on this.
Clearly the models are embarked, the NS rule clearly says model embarked.
This needs to be FAQ'd. I see both arguments but as I'm reading the rule I get this.
Models embarked take a Str 10 hit with no save. If they can't be placed within 3" of the template they are casualties. So the NS says that they go to reserve and can't be placed within 3" which makes them casualties.
I think a fair way to do it right now is to make them take a Str 10 hit and any survivors can go into reserve.
I really wish GW would get a few American Rule Lawyers to go over issues like this before rules come out.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
MJThurston wrote:I think a fair way to do it right now is to make them take a Str 10 hit and any survivors can go into reserve.
I really wish GW would get a few American Rule Lawyers to go over issues like this before rules come out.
Thank you, and I agree.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
You guys are pretty relentless . Just as an aside, this question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said no, they do not take the hits. I don't expect this to change minds or be considered canon--but I think it does show how different the mind set is between studio staff that write the rules--and us YMDC inhabitants that examine them .
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AgeOfEgos wrote:You guys are pretty relentless . Just as an aside, this question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said no, they do not take the hits. I don't expect this to change minds or be considered canon--but I think it does show how different the mind set is between studio staff that write the rules--and us YMDC inhabitants that examine them .
I'm sure it's what was intended. It's absolutely not what was written.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It's questionable what was written hence 9 pages of heated discussion. Just because you see it one way and think your grasp of the rules is right doesn't mean you're right. Seeing the response from the design team is good enough for me to know what's right in this particular case. No offense intended.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dozer Blades wrote:It's questionable what was written hence 9 pages of heated discussion. Just because you see it one way and think your grasp of the rules is right doesn't mean you're right. Seeing the response from the design team is good enough for me to know what's right in this particular case. No offense intended.
The 9 pages where one side kept going back to quoting fluff to justify their stance?
Those 9 pages?
Just checking.
No offense intended.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I thought it was hilarious when you attempted to make up your fluff to support your case.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
No amount of fluff can stop the rules for NS saying that Units EMBARKED never disembark from a destroyed NS but are put into reserve.
Rules for Fliers states that EMBARKED models take a Str 10 hit.
Pretty straight forward and fluff doesn't save you.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Dozer Blades wrote:I thought it was hilarious when you attempted to make up your fluff to support your case.
I never did. I was pointing out some absurdity and showing that my case can be explained with fluff - having the actual rules in my case as opposed to fluff works to my benefit.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I don't think either side is going to change the others' minds.... Well excepting mr. flippy floppy.
16368
Post by: snakel
rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sure it's what was intended. It's absolutely not what was written.
ERM sorry but you says that's what was written as you interpret it that way, but its clear others don't based on this on going argument, and the fact the question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said "no, they do not take the hits", proves they read the rules as written the same as me and others who believe they don't take the hit ,which again proves 2 things.
1 RAW is not black and white in this situation and can not be used to make a definitive answer .
2 Using RAW alone to say you are right and i am wrong is just showing a lack of commonsense which this games needs as much as RAW to be played .
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, what it means is that the people who know the intention of the rule know what is *should* say. That does not mean they actually expressed that at all in their written rules
RAW, they take the hits. There isnt a RAW argument against it - you repeatedly saying there is, when every. single. time. you were proven wrong, is tedious.
RAI you can easily "fluff" a reason they take the hits, as was done a couple times.
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, what it means is that the people who know the intention of the rule know what is *should* say. That does not mean they actually expressed that at all in their written rules
RAW, they take the hits. There isnt a RAW argument against it - you repeatedly saying there is, when every. single. time. you were proven wrong, is tedious.
RAI you can easily "fluff" a reason they take the hits, as was done a couple times.
Raw +codex + BRB
When a flyer that is also a transport is destroyed (crash and burn) models embarked take str 10 hits
Codex when a night scythe is destroyed the unit embarked is not allowed to disembark but instead enter reserves .
Crash and burn is not disembarking by RAI but for RAW it is .
So by using Raw if i do anything thing other than put my unit embarked in the night scythe in reserve i am breaking RAW .
Codex states unit goes in to reserve when scythe is destroyed not wait and resolve all damage and such
As i read RAW(and so do lots of other people ) scythe goes bang unit into reserve resolve crash and burn
As you read it Scythe goes bang resolve crash and burn then unit goes into reserve.
Proof no matter what you say that people read RAW differently !!!!!
All you are doing is saying how you interpret RAW is right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong .
Read the thread again see HOW people are reading RAW Differently ,and then accept RAW is not black and white in this case .
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
"So by using Raw if i do anything thing other than put my unit embarked in the night scythe in reserve i am breaking RAW .
"
Wrong. You are only given permission to replace disembarking with going into reserve. You are not given permission to ignore the other parts of crash and burn
repeatedly saying "Ths is RAW!!!!" when you dont understand how the ruleset is constructed doesnt make something RAW, nor does it make it not black and white.
You have permission to do one thing (enter reserves) instead of another (disembark). Find int he Necron codex ANY RULES which say you DONT take the S10 hits.
I have read this thread - oddly enough, given i was involved all the way through and have kept on pulling you up on your "RAW" shenanigans all the way through.
Some people will argue till theyre blue in the face that the sky is, in fact, green. THis does not mean that there is any doubt the sky isnt green.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
I have read both rules and didn't see the EMBARKED part.
Crash and Burn states EMBARKED unit takes a Str 10 hit.
NS says a unit EMBARKED can never disembark.
So here is where RAW joins the two rules.
RAW for the NS says that the units are EMBARKED. They hint at a wormhole but never say the unit is not in the vehicle. It even tells you how many the models the NS can hold.
It is 100% RAW that the unit EMBARKED take the Str 10 hits. The real debate is if they unit is destroyed (can't be placed with in 3" of template) or if it goes into reserve.
So as I said and it was agreed to by at least one member.
"Unit takes Str 10 hits and the survivors go to reserve."
32486
Post by: -Nazdreg-
I don't know why there is such a tough argueing going on here for a very clear topic...
We have two things here which dont happen at the same time:
1. Taking s10 hits
2. Disembarking
So during the normal procedure an embarked unit takes s10 hits and any survivors are then placed within 3" of the blast template created by the wrecked flyer.
So the disembarkation takes place after they have taken hits.
Now the Nightscythe-passengers do not disembark, they are placed in reserve instead.
So the second part is overridden by the codex and therefore the passengers still get s10 hits according to the part not overridden.
If GW wanted passengers treated as not embarked, they would have written something like that in the rules.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
That is the most simple and accurate description I have read yet. Thanks Naz !
16368
Post by: snakel
-Nazdreg- wrote:I don't know why there is such a tough argueing going on here for a very clear topic...
simple people wont accept RAW can be interpreted differently
-Nazdreg- wrote:If GW wanted passengers treated as not embarked, they would have written something like that in the rules.
The fact that the question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said "no, they do not take the hits" proves they thought they had!! and also thought people would grasp that fact through RAI
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So y ou've dropped your claims that it is RAW? Given you've not supplied any contrary rules to prove your side......
RAW is black and white on this. Whether this is what they intended is up for debate (the studio open day is not listed int he tenets of this forum, is it? I assume you've read them?) but what they WROTE in the rules is .... they take the S10 hits
There is no agre to disagree when one side hasnt a single rule to back their position
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:So y ou've dropped your claims that it is RAW? Given you've not supplied any contrary rules to prove your side......
RAW is black and white on this. Whether this is what they intended is up for debate (the studio open day is not listed int he tenets of this forum, is it? I assume you've read them?) but what they WROTE in the rules is .... they take the S10 hits
There is no agre to disagree when one side hasnt a single rule to back their position
Agreeing to disagree is the correct thing to do
Evey person i have played so far reads it that they don't take the hits.
Me and you will never play nor would we want to since i would say roll off as its not black and white as i read it differently to you ,and you would insist you were right
2325
Post by: MJThurston
I tried to argue that no hits happen repeatedly.
But....I went over each rule a few times and could not for the life of me escape one fact.
Both rules talk about EMBARKED. It doesn't matter how or when or if they Disembark.
So Embarked unit takes a Str 10 hit. RAW on this is very clear.
Embarked unit takes Str 10 hit.
NS has an Embarked squad.
Disembarked in any way doesn't save you. Put into reserve doesn't save you.
We all should know the intent was for Squads in NS to just be put into reserve but RAW does not support this intent. If the rules had stated that the NS was empty until the units disembarked then this would not be an issue.
The NS rules clearly state that a unit is Embarked. Crash and Burn does damage to Embarked units.
It can't get any simpler. The hard part is deciding if they are destroyed afterwards or put into reserve.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
In a rules debate, when one side has rules, and the other doesnt, "agree to disagree" gives a veneer of rules credibility to one side that isnt warranted.
So no, not the correct thing to do. Ruleswise you are *wrong*. As the rules are currently written, you are *wrong*
The plural of anecdote isnt evidence.
2325
Post by: MJThurston
who is wrong nos?
Me! Nope,
People don't like this because we all know what it should say. It doesn't say the right things and you can blame GW for it's poorly written rules.
No one has ever blamed GW for making a balance game. No one has ever blamed GW for making clear cut rules.
So we are left to figure out what to do.
I think we all agree that RAW beats RAI. In this case RAW clearly wins out on the hit part. Confusing on the rest.
Do I think the unit goes into reserve with no hits. I believe that is what GW intended. They didn't write it well.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
I was replying to Snakel - context is fairly obvious there.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel wrote:-Nazdreg- wrote:I don't know why there is such a tough argueing going on here for a very clear topic...
simple people wont accept RAW can be interpreted differently
-Nazdreg- wrote:If GW wanted passengers treated as not embarked, they would have written something like that in the rules.
The fact that the question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said "no, they do not take the hits" proves they thought they had!! and also thought people would grasp that fact through RAI
You do realize the difference between RAW and RAI, right?
None of us here are geniuses, and very few of us have English degrees. And I'd bet even fewer actually write game rules for a living.
If we read the rules they actually wrote and come to a conclusion they didn't intend, that doesn't mean we're wrong - it means they failed at writing rules. They can laugh all they want.
Also, RAW doesn't require interpretation. That'd require looking at intent.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
As above.
A lot of people are using "RAW" incorrectly, when they really mean "RAI"
15579
Post by: Fearspect
Unfortunately, RAW is simply one way of looking at things. This are the 'You Make Da Call' forums, not the 'RAW is the only correct way to play" forums.
Unless an FAQ comes out specifically stating that transported squad must take the Str 10 hits, a lot of people are fully justified not assigning them that damage.
Long story short: RAI (which a few of you focus on to discredit another position) is not, at its core, incorrect.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Fearspect wrote:Long story short: RAI (which a few of you focus on to discredit another position) is not, at its core, incorrect.
I don't disagree with that completely.
But in YMDC we discuss rules - we don't try and divine intent because that will lead to 5 people having 6 opinions on what they actually meant.
You should familiarize yourself with the tenets of this subgroup (you're not violating any of them, it just seems from your post that you're not familiar with them) before criticizing.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It is, given I can give a "RAI", aka "fluff the way around it", such that they do take the hits. A good couple were given already in this thread, if you'd read back
The rules, as written, mean they take the hits. RAI is ANYONES guess.
If you disagree, please remember the tenets of the forum - please back up your "RAI" with page and para from a rulebook, codex or FAQ that actually contradicts the true written rules
15579
Post by: Fearspect
I did, on thread page 9, third post down. The third paragraph from the Night Scythe does this.
I mean, nosferatu1001, you post here a lot. You must know that situations come up quite often where the RAW is so ambiguous that two (or more) correct interpretations exist. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it happens enough that strict RAW definitions need to be scrutinized a little more to get some consistency in the game.
rigeld2: I am familiar with the tenets. In this case, I am simply reminding people that what this seems to be is a butting of heads between RAW and HWYPI. It just goes around in circles not unlike how a toilet deals with waste.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Fearspect wrote:I did, on thread page 9, third post down. The third paragraph from the Night Scythe does this.
Sigh. That's not rules. you posted a fluff paragraph which can't have any bearing on a rules discussion.
I mean, nosferatu1001, you post here a lot. You must know that situations come up quite often where the RAW is so ambiguous that two (or more) correct interpretations exist. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it happens enough that strict RAW definitions need to be scrutinized a little more to get some consistency in the game.
They really don't. The fact that there are some instances where we need to start looking at intent does not mean that we should examine fluff for intent in every case.
Or should I auto-win vs Craftworld Eldar when I field the Doom of Malantai?
rigeld2: I am familiar with the tenets. In this case, I am simply reminding people that what this seems to be is a butting of heads between RAW and HWYPI. It just goes around in circles not unlike how a toilet deals with waste.
It's going around in circles because some people (evidently yourself included) refuse to accept that there can be a difference.
The rules say they take the hit. The only arguments people have come up with to refute that are fluff based and not actually rules.
Playing that way is fine, but it's a house rule and not the actual rules.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
I think you need to take a look at #4 of the tenets of this forum, rigeld2. You break this continuously.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Fearspect wrote:I think you need to take a look at #4 of the tenets of this forum, rigeld2. You break this continuously.
If you think I am, click the yellow triangle.
Nos said to cite rules to support your argument. You cited your post on page 9 which contains no rules.
I even said there's a difference between HYWPI and RAW. It's the other side in this thread that refuses to accept that fact.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Fearspect wrote:I did, on thread page 9, third post down. The third paragraph from the Night Scythe does this.
Which is fluff. And, if you had read the thread has been dealt with over, and over, and over.
It also doesnt deal with the fluff'ed " RAI" which shows how they can still, " RAI", take the S10 hit. Which you have also failed to address - I suspect because you havent bothered to read the thread to date.
Fearspect wrote:I mean, nosferatu1001, you post here a lot. You must know that situations come up quite often where the RAW is so ambiguous that two (or more) correct interpretations exist. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it happens enough that strict RAW definitions need to be scrutinized a little more to get some consistency in the game.
This is not one of those situations. The RAW is absolutely 100% utterly and incontrovertibly clear. How do we know this? Because in 9 pages noone has yet managed to actually argue THE RULES. There have been many attempts at arguing the fluff, everytime ignoring the counter-fluff presumably because this fatally undermines their attempt at a fluff argument
RAW: they take the hits
RAI: they take the hits. or they dont take the hits. Shock, noone knows for sure.
Fearspect wrote:rigeld2: I am familiar with the tenets. In this case, I am simply reminding people that what this seems to be is a butting of heads between RAW and HWYPI. It just goes around in circles not unlike how a toilet deals with waste.
It is a butting of heads between people who believe their fluff is also rules, and those who treat the rules simply when they are unambiguous
The rules are unambiguous.
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is not one of those situations. The RAW is absolutely 100% utterly and incontrovertibly clear. How do we know this? Because in 9 pages noone has yet managed to actually argue THE RULES. There have been many attempts at arguing the fluff, everytime ignoring the counter-fluff presumably because this fatally undermines their attempt at a fluff argument
RAW: they take the hits
RAI: they take the hits. or they dont take the hits. Shock, noone knows for sure.
Sadly No!!! if that was the case this argument would have ended a long time ago .
hence why we disagree because your interpretation of RAW differs from mine ,and before anyone says it ,the written word is read then the brain interprets the words and make seance of that written word ,hence anything written HAS to be interpreted and we interpret it differently
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No it doesnt
Your disagreement has no rules basis, as has been shown consistently throughout this thread. You simply choose to ignore one rule entirely, when you are only given permission to trade one part of the rule (disembarking) and not the whole.
Again: you have zero. nil. zip. zilch. nada. RULES reason to rmeove the S10 hits. You have only ever posted a fluff argument, and a BAD rules argument - bad, because when challenged it falls apart.
We also parse language, not interpret it. Subtle difference.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I find it strange people want to break a rule that has been explained how it actually works by the design studio. You can't lay this one to blame on the steps of GW's house.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Dozer Blades wrote:I find it strange people want to break a rule that has been explained how it actually works by the design studio. You can't lay this one to blame on the steps of GW's house.
[citation needed]
Have you bothered to read the tenets of this forum? "I chatted to a guy from the studio open day" isnt a source of information for this forum as far as rules debates go.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Here is case where you clearly know the intent of the person who wrote the rules.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
snakel, I'm going to address your last post that discussed rules.
snakel wrote:Raw +codex +BRB
When a flyer that is also a transport is destroyed (crash and burn) models embarked take str 10 hits
Codex when a night scythe is destroyed the unit embarked is not allowed to disembark but instead enter reserves .
Crash and burn is not disembarking by RAI but for RAW it is .
Let me stop you right there. That sentence is wholly incorrect. Show me the word "disembark" in the crash and burn rules.
To make the Night Scythe transport rule not wholly useless, instead of putting the unit in reserve when you disembark, we'll allow you to put them in reserve instead of placing them.
So by using Raw if i do anything thing other than put my unit embarked in the night scythe in reserve i am breaking RAW .
Codex states unit goes in to reserve when scythe is destroyed not wait and resolve all damage and such
The codex says do not disembark, instead put the unit into reserve.
You're trying to put them into reserve immediately when there's no rules based reason to.
As i read RAW(and so do lots of other people ) scythe goes bang unit into reserve resolve crash and burn
As you read it Scythe goes bang resolve crash and burn then unit goes into reserve.
Proof no matter what you say that people read RAW differently !!!!!
Yes, some people don't let fluff influence how the rules should be read.
Others obviously do.
Please cite the reason you are choosing to follow the Night Scythe rule at the step you asserted, instead of when the models are placed.
Your continued defense that this is one "interpretation" of RAW is the only reason I'm asking you to do this.
If you instead want to call this RAI or HYWPI then fine - I have absolutely no problems with that.
But you have zero standing to claim it is a possibly correct reading of the rules based on what you've posted in this thread.
You claim that the Night Scythe rule that mentions disembarking happens far before any method of getting out of the flyer ever happens. Why? Automatically Appended Next Post: Dozer Blades wrote:Here is case where you clearly know the intent of the person who wrote the rules.
I clearly know the intent of the person who wrote the rules based on some persons statement of what was said.
As far as RAW that changes nothing.
As far as RAI or HIWPI it changes nothing because I'm fine with the unit not taking the hit.
16368
Post by: snakel
nosferatu1001 wrote:No it doesnt
Your disagreement has no rules basis, as has been shown consistently throughout this thread. You simply choose to ignore one rule entirely, when you are only given permission to trade one part of the rule (disembarking) and not the whole.
Again: you have zero. nil. zip. zilch. nada. RULES reason to rmeove the S10 hits. You have only ever posted a fluff argument, and a BAD rules argument - bad, because when challenged it falls apart.
We also parse language, not interpret it. Subtle difference.
This is going sour ,i don't really care what you think or believe i play with people who think the same as me, every person i play with thinks this is a stupid argument and that its clear they don't take the hits ,call it a house rule all you want i suppose when the writers of the rules play it the same way as me that's a house rule to .
Fact. this argument has no out come other that to continue on its circle path
I always though that YMTC was a place to clarify rules and with rules like this you take the majorities idea over the few but there is no majority ,so truly here you have to make the call yourself and ignore anything else.
so have fun but remember even if you can prove your right ,if its not written down in black and white you must be wrong
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
McNinja wrote:If the Necron troops embarked upon a Night Scythe take damage, then the entire third paragraph of fluff in the Night Scythe entry is completely irrelevant. You might as well take a sharpie to your codex and redact that paragraph. .
You mean like the scout ability of Valks and Vendettas over the "All flyers must start in reserves", even if the flyer in question can be a hover craft and has the scout special rule?
You should have learned by by now that BRB overrides Codex when the majority of the 40k crowd does not like the units you use.......
47462
Post by: rigeld2
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:McNinja wrote:If the Necron troops embarked upon a Night Scythe take damage, then the entire third paragraph of fluff in the Night Scythe entry is completely irrelevant. You might as well take a sharpie to your codex and redact that paragraph. .
You mean like the scout ability of Valks and Vendettas over the "All flyers must start in reserves", even if the flyer in question can be a hover craft and has the scout special rule?
You should have learned by by now that BRB overrides Codex when the majority of the 40k crowd does not like the units you use.......
...
Not even comparable. McNinja is talking about a fluff paragraph.
You're talking about an ability that isn't useless - all the Flyer rule means is that you can't redeploy before the game starts. You can still outflank just fine.
58920
Post by: Neorealist
*cough* i argued the rules. My main point was that the 'entire' crash and burn transport rules are replaced by the nightscythe 'vehicle destroyed' ones, not just the parts of it about the models ending up on the table and taking a Str 10 hit for that matter. I don't think the rules allow you to chop up the 'crash and burn' rules to the degree that you only follow the str 10 hit part and nothing else.
You want RAW? fine.
RAW -> 'Codex > Main Rule' book. (I've said this before...)
"...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules..."
Ok then, so it's my job to prove that one rule conflicts with the other right?
Ok.
Nightscythe Rule:
...If the Nightscythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve...
Zooming Transport Rule:
"...the Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties..."
One rule tells you to put an embarked unit in reserve if the vehicle is destroyed, the other tells you to hit the embarked unit a bunch of un-armor-savable times and put it on the table if the vehicle is destroyed. I'm sure folks can see how those conflict.
Frankly i'm not a big fan of the hubris that is occuring within this thread that presumes that there is only one possible way the above rules can interact within RAW and therefore that there is only one possible representation of the rules. As such this will be my last post in this thread most likely, as i cannot rationally argue with that sort of obstinacy. My money is with the 'RAW is inconclusive in this case so agree to disagree' camp though.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Neo, the problem with what you're saying is that the conflict only happens with placement - nothing at all is mentioned about the damage.
Where are you getting permission to replace the damage part?
58920
Post by: Neorealist
I contend the 'takes damage' aspect is part of the rule being superceded by the codex.
|
|
