6th edition states that a flyer transport causes an S10 AP2 hit to all its occupants when it is wrecked or explodes. The Necron codex states that the passengers may not disembark when their vehicle is destroyed, but instead enters reserve.

Do those passengers still take the damage from being in a wrecked flyer? I can't seem to find any mention of this in either the 6e Core or Necron FAQs, and by RAW it seems that they would indeed take the hit. It'd be nice to have some degree of confirmation, though.

RAW they do, RAI i think they don't. Either discuss it with the opponent pre game or dice off for it, or have a third party decide is usually how we handle the issue.

It seems RAW they do, RAI is a bit unclear tbh. If you break it down into steps by the time they would "disembark" they've already taken the hits and possibly all died

They aren't passengers. The vehicle description states the vehicle has no transport compartment, so they can't be on board - and it is simply a worm hole that brings them in from a remote location.

And the rule that states they enter reserve is the vehicle is destroyed, further confirms they were never on board - basically have to find a new way to enter battle at this point.

The vehicle profile even states (page 51 of the codex) "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, its payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established"

"isolated = they are not effected" to me.

I'm with fursphere here, this being the explanation that was given last time I heard this question

fursphere wrote:
They aren't passengers. The vehicle description states the vehicle has no transport compartment, so they can't be on board - and it is simply a worm hole that brings them in from a remote location.

And the rule that states they enter reserve is the vehicle is destroyed, further confirms they were never on board - basically have to find a new way to enter battle at this point.

The vehicle profile even states (page 51 of the codex) "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, its payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established"

"isolated = they are not effected" to me.

I don't have the codex in front of me, however I remember a part that said they don't disembark in the rules.

"if the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (no deep striking allowed)"

Is that what you're refering too? So because the rule uses the word "embark" and "disembark", they must be "on" the vehicle for the purpose of rules?

RAW it is ambiguous. RAI they don't take the hits. RAW occupants in a flyer never disembark. They are just placed in the crater of the flyer.

Aycee

fursphere wrote:
"if the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (no deep striking allowed)"

Is that what you're refering too? So because the rule uses the word "embark" and "disembark", they must be "on" the vehicle for the purpose of rules?

Yep, they're embarked. They take the hits RAW, and tbh I'm not sure if it's RAI for them to take them or not. However I'd say yes as it's following it step by step.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

fursphere wrote:
They aren't passengers. The vehicle description states the vehicle has no transport compartment, so they can't be on board - and it is simply a worm hole that brings them in from a remote location.

And the rule that states they enter reserve is the vehicle is destroyed, further confirms they were never on board - basically have to find a new way to enter battle at this point.

The vehicle profile even states (page 51 of the codex) "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, its payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established"

"isolated = they are not effected" to me.

I don't have the codex in front of me, however I remember a part that said they don't disembark in the rules.

We had a few forums about this in the past.

To my understanding the RAW supports the idea that the Immortals inside the flyer suffer from it exploding during impact the survivors are then transported onto the battlefield another way like any other player

the RAI due to people saying "but they get out" is actually not an awful statement but it is more or less the idea it doesn't make sense for the necron to wait around to take the damage they would just "not be on the ship they would teleport" which the RAI does underline this a bit.

At the moment I make sure people tell me how they want it working before we begin. Personally i argee with RAW flyers are very potent and necron flying circus is currently powerful as heck in this edition. Treating it like all other flyers only makes sense to me at this time. Also the idea of the RAW argument is as followers

According to the flyer wrecked or explodes results is after you scatter the flyer it explodes dealing strength 10 no armor save hits to everyone in the unit before disembarking occurs. When you read the necron codex it states that should a unit be forced to disembark due to a vehicle destroyed result they are instead held in reserves. The problem with this is that it is stressing a "timing difference" this means it explodes before they warp away, so imagine it suffering cataclysmic damage before the surviving immortals get away.

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
occupants hit by S:10 no armor save hits
Survivors may now disembark and roll pinning tests (this is where in necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves)

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

fursphere wrote:
"if the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (no deep striking allowed)"

Is that what you're refering too? So because the rule uses the word "embark" and "disembark", they must be "on" the vehicle for the purpose of rules?

Yep, they're embarked. They take the hits RAW, and tbh I'm not sure if it's RAI for them to take them or not. However I'd say yes as it's following it step by step.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I understand what you're getting at, but what you're ultimately doing is pointing out a very cheesy way of getting an advantage in a competitive situation.

It needs to be FAQ'd, but the intent - as per the codex - is extremely clear in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
occupants hit by S:10 no armor save hits
Survivors may now disembark and roll pinning tests (this is where in necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves)

Except its like this...

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
there are no occupants on board to be hit, so this step is skipped.
necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves

It's weird to see Necron players reaching...

I'm sure we'd all love to have flying transports that suffer none of the disadvantages of flying.

fursphere wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

fursphere wrote:
"if the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (no deep striking allowed)"

Is that what you're refering too? So because the rule uses the word "embark" and "disembark", they must be "on" the vehicle for the purpose of rules?

Yep, they're embarked. They take the hits RAW, and tbh I'm not sure if it's RAI for them to take them or not. However I'd say yes as it's following it step by step.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I understand what you're getting at, but what you're ultimately doing is pointing out a very cheesy way of getting an advantage in a competitive situation.

It needs to be FAQ'd, but the intent - as per the codex - is extremely clear in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
occupants hit by S:10 no armor save hits
Survivors may now disembark and roll pinning tests (this is where in necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves)

Except its like this...

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
there are no occupants on board to be hit, so this step is skipped.
necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves

If you're embarked you're inside. At the beginning of the game you choose to deploy as normal or embark. Show me where you're given permission to do otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also remember fluff =/= rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase
embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark before or after
the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so
long as the vehicle has not moved more than 36". If the Night
Scythe moves more than 24" in the same turn, the disembarking
unit can only fire Snap Shots.”

FAQ for disembarking. First sentence says your embarked upon it.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

fursphere wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

fursphere wrote:
"if the NS is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (no deep striking allowed)"

Is that what you're refering too? So because the rule uses the word "embark" and "disembark", they must be "on" the vehicle for the purpose of rules?

Yep, they're embarked. They take the hits RAW, and tbh I'm not sure if it's RAI for them to take them or not. However I'd say yes as it's following it step by step.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I understand what you're getting at, but what you're ultimately doing is pointing out a very cheesy way of getting an advantage in a competitive situation.

It needs to be FAQ'd, but the intent - as per the codex - is extremely clear in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
occupants hit by S:10 no armor save hits
Survivors may now disembark and roll pinning tests (this is where in necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves)

Except its like this...

so the steps go

enemy shoots
Flyer chooses to dive or not
enemy rolls for penetrations
enemy applies results (Explodes result rolled)
Scatter 2d6
there are no occupants on board to be hit, so this step is skipped.
necron codex the cron are now able to be held back in reserves

If you're embarked you're inside. At the beginning of the game you choose to deploy as normal or embark. Show me where you're given permission to do otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also remember fluff =/= rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase
embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark before or after
the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so
long as the vehicle has not moved more than 36". If the Night
Scythe moves more than 24" in the same turn, the disembarking
unit can only fire Snap Shots.”

FAQ for disembarking. First sentence says your embarked upon it.

Correct, you aren't just flying your night scythe around with nothing inside it it's required you inform you tell your enemy what is using that as a transport and all the terminology says it is embarked everywhere else. faq, main rulebook, even your own codex except for a poorly written sentence that says when you disembark you must go into reserves instead, again the damage come before disembarking which your codex clearly shows as what is required for you to swap from the wreckage.

Your fluff is strong and almost looks like a rule however it isn't overpowering the main rules and this is sadly due to the fact that they made the night scythe a bit awkward. it was created before the flyer rules were perfected as a result your codex is the only one that can fly 23 inches drop off troops which can then file out 6 inches from disembark and still fire as normal, it's effectively a perfect deepstrike. I hate to say it but i agree with the concensus of the group here; your interruptation is merely refusing the truth. depending how you presented this to me I might not even allow a dice roll off because it's a clear and obvious line of events. If you were a nice and friendly player i would probably let it slide and just roll off but if you weren't a nice or friendly person... lol good luck getting me to be your pal for such a more or less black and white ruling.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/459610.page

If you dare.....
Took me forever to find and its not one of the more civilized discussions on this forum but, eh, there you have it.

The biggest issue with them not taking the damage is there is no rules saying that they dont. Its hinted to quite a bit but as it stands, RAW, they take the hits. I dont like it but then again, I dont use them so it dosent really matter to me anymore.

RAW they take the hits. Absolutely no question - they are an embarked unit and have no allowance to NOT take the hits.

RAI? WHo knows. You can easily fluff reasons for an against - feedback through the portal hitting the unit waiting to go through, etc. Which is why RAI is generally a poor argument.

RAW, they are treated as embarked -as the rules repeatedly refer to "embarked units".

Had the rules instead specified something such as "Instead of carrying embrked units, the Night Scythe may place one unit in reserve onto the table, as if they had disembarked from the Night Scythe" - then they would be immune to the damage of a crashing Night Scythe.

It does not, however.

It may be FAQ'd that they do not suffer the hits as a result, since they are not placed when the vehicle crashes and instead enter reserves.

RAW can you show me in the BRB where units disembark from any flying transport? RAW units in a wrecked flyer never disembark so in that case the Necrons embarked on a Scythe should then be destroyed because in the process of working out what happens to an embarked unit in a flyer they never disembark.

Once again it's a poorly written rules so in that case RAI should be given more weight. Ever they ever FAQ it, i would bet they would FAQ that they don't take the hits.

Aycee

By RAW I would say they take hits asthe order for taking hits comes before disembarking.

By RAI I guess they wouldn't as they aren't (by fluff) in the Night Scythe though you can't really use fluff as an argument.
Even then, in a SoB book, a necron flyer was destroyed and the portal they were waiting to pass through exploded and killed all the warriors. (or at least that's what I remember hearing about)

Aycee71 wrote:
RAW can you show me in the BRB where units disembark from any flying transport? RAW units in a wrecked flyer never disembark so in that case the Necrons embarked on a Scythe should then be destroyed because in the process of working out what happens to an embarked unit in a flyer they never disembark.

Once again it's a poorly written rules so in that case RAI should be given more weight. Ever they ever FAQ it, i would bet they would FAQ that they don't take the hits.

Aycee

Pg. 81 under "CRASH AND BURN" entry

"... If the flyer is a transport, any models within suffer a strength 10 hit with no armor 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"

Pg. 410 Under "Appendix 2 References Legend" Entry

... Flyer = Fl ... Transport = T

Pg. 413 Under "Codex: Necrons - Vehicle " Entry

Necron Night Scythe ... type: Fl, T

The words disembark are never even used in the main rules for this. When your vehicle is destroyed you suffer strength 10 hits BEFORE your rule comes into play because your codex says only when you are allowed to disembark are you allowed to jump ship... so yeah thank you for proving RAW's point. It doesn't say disembark it says when your vehicle is destroyed and if it is a transport that was carrying a unit.

Like i said it's more or less black and white. The whole crux of the arguement was that disembarking was to be considered placing the models within 3 inches of the blast marker but it isn't... if it was then your rule still wouldn't apply because the damage happens in a two step phase. Explosion, then pile out. Please, if you are going to argue for your case read the rules to at least know how to muddy the water.

Aycee71 wrote:
RAW can you show me in the BRB where units disembark from any flying transport? RAW units in a wrecked flyer never disembark so in that case the Necrons embarked on a Scythe should then be destroyed because in the process of working out what happens to an embarked unit in a flyer they never disembark.

Correct. Since that's silly (it renders the NS rule entirely meaningless) the placement should be considered disembarking for the purposes of the NS rule.

Once again it's a poorly written rules so in that case RAI should be given more weight. Ever they ever FAQ it, i would bet they would FAQ that they don't take the hits.

Your interpretation of RAI. I disagree with it. There are fluff examples of the portal "backfiring" and destroying the unit that was waiting to deploy.

I noticed RAI is often what the player wants to see rather than what they actually read from the mind of the writers. To me, RAI or RAW, the passengers take the hit, then are placed into reserve, losing all RP counters in the process, because there is nowhere in the rules of the nightscythe where it contradicts the "taking damage" part of the Crash and Burn, it does however contradicts where the survivors are placed, so codex > BRB in that case.

Baronyu wrote:
I noticed RAI is often what the player wants to see rather than what they actually read from the mind of the writers. To me, RAI or RAW, the passengers take the hit, then are placed into reserve, losing all RP counters in the process, because there is nowhere in the rules of the nightscythe where it contradicts the "taking damage" part of the Crash and Burn, it does however contradicts where the survivors are placed, so codex > BRB in that case.

How does it contradict the "where the survivors are placed" part? The rule says :

Transport (Night Scythe): The Night Scythe has a transport capacity of 15. It can carry jump infantry (each model takes up two points of transport capacity) and jetbikes (each model takes up three points of transport capacity). 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, either the Necrons take the hits and are placed in the crater or they don't take the hits and are placed in reserves.

Tye_Informer wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
I noticed RAI is often what the player wants to see rather than what they actually read from the mind of the writers. To me, RAI or RAW, the passengers take the hit, then are placed into reserve, losing all RP counters in the process, because there is nowhere in the rules of the nightscythe where it contradicts the "taking damage" part of the Crash and Burn, it does however contradicts where the survivors are placed, so codex > BRB in that case.

How does it contradict the "where the survivors are placed" part? The rule says :

Transport (Night Scythe): The Night Scythe has a transport capacity of 15. It can carry jump infantry (each model takes up two points of transport capacity) and jetbikes (each model takes up three points of transport capacity). 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, either the Necrons take the hits and are placed in the crater or they don't take the hits and are placed in reserves.

Or you do it in the proper sequences up to the point where they would disembark. At that point they've already taken hits

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Or you do it in the proper sequences up to the point where they would disembark. At that point they've already taken hits

But they never disembark, they are "placed". It is wording from an old codex, so either it replaces the whole "getting out of an destroyed vehicle", like it did in 5th Edition or it is no longer valid. I'm okay with either ruling, but this take a bit here, take a bit there, because that's what was intended thing doesn't work for a RAW argument.

Did you even read the posts just above yours? THey disprove your point...

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Or you do it in the proper sequences up to the point where they would disembark. At that point they've already taken hits

Show me in the rules where units in a flying transport ever disembark. By you stating that units disembark from a wrecked flyer you are making up a rule that does not exist.

Also for the person who earlier says that by me bringing that up even more proves their point, I disagree. I brought that point up to show that the rule set in the BRB and the rule set in the codex do not agree on the sequence of events. If you follow strictly RAW, the contradiction between the two rule sets represent badly written rules. If you argue that they take the hits you are making just as many assumptions about how the rules work as those that agree that they do not take the hits.

Aycee

Aycee71 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Or you do it in the proper sequences up to the point where they would disembark. At that point they've already taken hits

Show me in the rules where units in a flying transport ever disembark. By you stating that units disembark from a wrecked flyer you are making up a rule that does not exist.

Also for the person who earlier says that by me bringing that up even more proves their point, I disagree. I brought that point up to show that the rule set in the BRB and the rule set in the codex do not agree on the sequence of events. If you follow strictly RAW, the contradiction between the two rule sets represent badly written rules. If you argue that they take the hits you are making just as many assumptions about how the rules work as those that agree that they do not take the hits.

Aycee

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

Where it says they disembark

Aycee71 wrote:
Also for the person who earlier says that by me bringing that up even more proves their point, I disagree. I brought that point up to show that the rule set in the BRB and the rule set in the codex do not agree on the sequence of events. If you follow strictly RAW, the contradiction between the two rule sets represent badly written rules. If you argue that they take the hits you are making just as many assumptions about how the rules work as those that agree that they do not take the hits.

Not true. Since the Night Scythe rule only functions when the unit disembarks, it's literally useless in 6th edition. That's one (valid) way to read the RAW.
To make it useful, we'll allow disembark to mean the same thing as placing the unit. It's not an assumption, it's an allowance based on an edition change.
Note when the hits happen. Note when the placement/disembarking happens.

I'm perfectly willing to agree with you that the unit cannot disembark and therefore the Night Scythe rule is useless. There's no conflict, it just doesn't work in 6th edition.

rigeld2 wrote:

Aycee71 wrote:
Also for the person who earlier says that by me bringing that up even more proves their point, I disagree. I brought that point up to show that the rule set in the BRB and the rule set in the codex do not agree on the sequence of events. If you follow strictly RAW, the contradiction between the two rule sets represent badly written rules. If you argue that they take the hits you are making just as many assumptions about how the rules work as those that agree that they do not take the hits.

Not true. Since the Night Scythe rule only functions when the unit disembarks, it's literally useless in 6th edition. That's one (valid) way to read the RAW.
To make it useful, we'll allow disembark to mean the same thing as placing the unit. It's not an assumption, it's an allowance based on an edition change.
Note when the hits happen. Note when the placement/disembarking happens.

I'm perfectly willing to agree with you that the unit cannot disembark and therefore the Night Scythe rule is useless. There's no conflict, it just doesn't work in 6th edition.

The way the codex entry for Night Scythe worked in 5th edition replaced the entire Destroyed effect on passengers with the Codex version (i.e. no pinning test, no models destroyed because they can't disembark, etc.)

Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark
are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

So, the "valid" allowance would be to do the same thing, replace the entire rule with the codex version, just like 5th Edition. Deciding to apply part of the new rule and then insert the old rule where you think they intended, is not an allowance, that is RAI or at least how someone thinks they intend the rule.

When a FAQ comes out about this, we will know what was intended. Until then, we either throw out the codex rule or we use it in place of the BRB rule.

I would like to point out that in
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/459610.page
we were getting most of the same arguments. Its likely to end the same way. That is, not at all.

Tye_Informer wrote:

The way the codex entry for Night Scythe worked in 5th edition replaced the entire Destroyed effect on passengers with the Codex version (i.e. no pinning test, no models destroyed because they can't disembark, etc.)

Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark
are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

So, the "valid" allowance would be to do the same thing, replace the entire rule with the codex version, just like 5th Edition. Deciding to apply part of the new rule and then insert the old rule where you think they intended, is not an allowance, that is RAI or at least how someone thinks they intend the rule.

When a FAQ comes out about this, we will know what was intended. Until then, we either throw out the codex rule or we use it in place of the BRB rule.

Not true whatsoever.

In 5th edition, the Disembark happened before anything else - and since the disembark was replaced with the NS rule, they went into reserve.
In 6th, there's things that happen before the models are placed. The NS rule only gives permission to replace the disembark, not the entire rule.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I would like to point out that in
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/459610.page
we were getting most of the same arguments. Its likely to end the same way. That is, not at all.

higher brain functions, I approve of this comment

Simply put guys the new rule book for 6th seems pretty iron clad on this; but if you want to go the way of the Eldar and dispute meanings of words and rulings of a codex with no FAQ but a less than 6 month old big rule book feel free, i just think it's a waste of time.

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th edition, the Disembark happened before anything else - and since the disembark was replaced with the NS rule, they went into reserve.
In 6th, there's things that happen before the models are placed. The NS rule only gives permission to replace the disembark, not the entire rule.

So in 5th, they went into reserve and took a pinning test? No, the whole rule was replaced.

In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

Simply put guys the new rule book for 6th seems pretty iron clad on this; but if you want to go the way of the Eldar and dispute meanings of words and rulings of a codex with no FAQ but a less than 6 month old big rule book feel free, i just think it's a waste of time.

The problem with some comments that say "iron clad", is they don't say what the "iron clad" rule is. I take it that you are saying that the "iron clad" rule is the Night Scythe rule doesn't apply at all, since it refers to terminology for normal transports in 5th edition and the Night Scythe is now a Flyer transport in 6th Edition.

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th edition, the Disembark happened before anything else - and since the disembark was replaced with the NS rule, they went into reserve.
In 6th, there's things that happen before the models are placed. The NS rule only gives permission to replace the disembark, not the entire rule.

So in 5th, they went into reserve and took a pinning test? No, the whole rule was replaced.

Right - you replaced the sentence. Meaning they didn't take a pinning test. Replacing the entire rule would mean you don't replace the vehicle with a wreck, which is obviously wrong.

In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Right - replace the disembark (which I'm giving allowance to mean placed unit - I've said that a few times) and apply the rule. So you agree that they take the hits?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Please quote the rule and bold the word disembark.

Tye_Informer wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Please quote the rule and bold the word disembark.

Aww I'm sorry it's only implied that they disembarked, shucks can't bold it for you.

However, if the flyer was also stunned you imply they get around this?

Q: If passengers disembark from a Transport that has suffered a
Shaken or Stunned result, do they still suffer these effects in their
next Shooting phase? (p80)
A: Yes.

and this

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Please quote the rule and bold the word disembark.

Aww I'm sorry it's only implied that they disembarked, shucks can't bold it for you.

That's my point, they don't disembark, so you either replace the passenger effect with the one from the Codex (like we did in 5th edition) or you don't use it at all. Inserting the Codex rule in where you think it should go based on an implied disembark is RAI, not RAW.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

However, if the flyer was also stunned you imply they get around this?

Q: If passengers disembark from a Transport that has suffered a
Shaken or Stunned result, do they still suffer these effects in their
next Shooting phase? (p80)
A: Yes.

and this

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

You must have me confused with someone else. I never said or implied that a unit disembarking from a Night Scythe using Invasion Beams (the only way to disembark from a Zooming Night Scythe, and Night Scythes can only Zoom) do not have to follow the disembark rules for transports. I don't see any rule that says they are allowed to ignore these 2 rules so I would have to see a real good argument that they do. In regards to this, I am on the "These 2 rules apply to units disembarking from a Night Scythe" camp.

My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

Aycee

Aycee71 wrote:
My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

Aycee

I see it as they take their Str10 hits, than go into reserve mainly at some point models have to disembark. The only place seemingly fit is the "place"

Aycee71 wrote:
My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

No, it doesn't.

To make them take the hits all you have to do is go with the fact that placing models is the same as disembarking. We have clues for that - the exploded vehicle FAQ being the best one.

Page 426 – The Game Summary, Transport Vehicles and Their
Passengers, Explodes (Other Effects).
Change the entry to read “The unit takes a number of Strength
4 AP – hits equal to the number of models in the unit.
Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be
and must take a Pinning test.”

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

Destroyed references both Explodes! and Wrecked results. Here we have "passengers are placed" equated with disembarking.

To make them go straight to reserve you must ignore a sentence, then apply the NS rule.


One of these methods ignores nothing and has rules support. The other ignores a sentence for no reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

To make them take the hits all you have to do is go with the fact that placing models is the same as disembarking. We have clues for that - the exploded vehicle FAQ being the best one.

Page 426 – The Game Summary, Transport Vehicles and Their
Passengers, Explodes (Other Effects).
Change the entry to read “The unit takes a number of Strength
4 AP – hits equal to the number of models in the unit.
Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be
and must take a Pinning test.”

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

Destroyed references both Explodes! and Wrecked results. Here we have "passengers are placed" equated with disembarking.

Thank you for proving my point. Due to a lack of a clear indication of rules you have made assumptions. I highlighted the key words to prove that in your argument. RAW the rules don't work and so you had to use clues and try to equate one rule with another for your version of RAI.

Aycee

Aycee71 wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. Due to a lack of a clear indication of rules you have made assumptions. I highlighted the key words to prove that in your argument. RAW the rules don't work and so you had to use clues and try to equate one rule with another for your version of RAI.

I didn't equate the two. GW did.
I'm not making assumptions. I'm reading rules. I'm also not ignoring anything when I show how the rules work. Your interpretation absolutely does.

Ok necron codex is the only codex which explains what happens to thier flyers when there is a wrecked or destroyed result in the codex. All other flyers use the BRB, since they have nothing written in their codex to explain it. Two sets of rules, codex trumps BRB.pg 7

Theres mUddy watter for ya Codex>BrB.
Though im hoping as much as everyone else that the faq clears it up. SOON.

Lungpickle wrote:
Ok necron codex is the only codex which explains what happens to thier flyers when there is a wrecked or destroyed result in the codex. All other flyers use the BRB, since they have nothing written in their codex to explain it. Two sets of rules, codex trumps BRB.pg 7

Theres mUddy watter for ya Codex>BrB.
Though im hoping as much as everyone else that the faq clears it up. SOON.

Yes, the codex trumps the BRB. The models are not placed - they go into reserve.
Nothing in the codex addresses or conflicts with what happens before they go into reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
Ok necron codex is the only codex which explains what happens to thier flyers when there is a wrecked or destroyed result in the codex. All other flyers use the BRB, since they have nothing written in their codex to explain it. Two sets of rules, codex trumps BRB.pg 7

Theres mUddy watter for ya Codex>BrB.
Though im hoping as much as everyone else that the faq clears it up. SOON.

Yes, the codex trumps the BRB. The models are not placed - they go into reserve.
Nothing in the codex addresses or conflicts with what happens before they go into reserve.

Sounds like they take some painful hits.

The only case where a destroyed hit is explicitly stated to be replaced by codex's own is Ork's vehicles, ramshackle, I believe?

People who argue that "placed" =/= "disembarked", here's a little something to consider: using rigeld2's quotes from FAQ...

An unit embarked on a vehicle that has suffered an explode result will take the hit, and then survivors are placed where the vehicle used to be and must take a pinning test. However, if we're going by the "placed" =/= "disembarked" logic/interpretation, does this mean the unit can then assault on their own turn even if it's not an assault vehicle? I mean, the Q/A says disembark and not placed, obviously this means if you shot down the vehicle carrying the TH/SS termies or something, assuming they, for whatever reason, aren't on an assault vehicle, they can assault you as the survivors are placed, they didn't disembark, so they're not subjected to any disembarkation restriction.

See how crazy this sounds? Even under disembarkation in the rulebook, they used "placed"/"placing" when talking about the very act of placing models on the table from disembark, so did they invalidate their own rules by using a word that describes literally what you're doing...?

Also, here's what the codex says:

[...] If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve(when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).

... Are you now gonna argue that "enters reserve" =/= "disembark"? Also, I really recommend re-reading the BRB for Crash and Burn and note how survivors are placed is after the S10 hits, and the above codex quote about how they're embarked during the destruction of the vehicle, yet nothing about replacing the entire vehicle destroy/crash and burn result with the codex's version, unlike orks' vehicles.

Baronyu wrote:
The only case where a destroyed hit is explicitly stated to be replaced by codex's own is Ork's vehicles, ramshackle, I believe?

People who argue that "placed" =/= "disembarked", here's a little something to consider: using rigeld2's quotes from FAQ...

An unit embarked on a vehicle that has suffered an explode result will take the hit, and then survivors are placed where the vehicle used to be and must take a pinning test. However, if we're going by the "placed" =/= "disembarked" logic/interpretation, does this mean the unit can then assault on their own turn even if it's not an assault vehicle? I mean, the Q/A says disembark and not placed, obviously this means if you shot down the vehicle carrying the TH/SS termies or something, assuming they, for whatever reason, aren't on an assault vehicle, they can assault you as the survivors are placed, they didn't disembark, so they're not subjected to any disembarkation restriction.

See how crazy this sounds? Even under disembarkation in the rulebook, they used "placed"/"placing" when talking about the very act of placing models on the table from disembark, so did they invalidate their own rules by using a word that describes literally what you're doing...?

Also, here's what the codex says:

[...] If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve(when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).

... Are you now gonna argue that "enters reserve" =/= "disembark"? Also, I really recommend re-reading the BRB for Crash and Burn and note how survivors are placed is after the S10 hits, and the above codex quote about how they're embarked during the destruction of the vehicle, yet nothing about replacing the entire vehicle destroy/crash and burn result with the codex's version, unlike orks' vehicles.

Affirmative, No matter what you are arguing for a few things are clear that we can all agree upon. I will highlight these and rather than have crons form their own opinions I will ask you to please make your statement in the form of my question If you can answer you at least have a debate-able topic.

a) Necron Nightscythes are flyers
b) Necron Nightscythes are transports
c) A Necron player must declare a unit embarked in a transport if it wishes to be embarked at the start of the game.

so in order to try and make sense of the grabbled statements I will ask anyone who thinks the necron avoid this damage to please answer these questions.

#1) Vendettas & Storm Ravens will take the Crash and burn strength 10 hits, can you please tell us what page & rule specifically allows your Night Scythe to avoid that effect?
#2) Through-out the BRB the entries and terms for "Disembark" are used constantly for vehicles; flyers are included. If crash and burn is something that is treated the same as disembark why do you think this was done despite the multiple references to disembark even within hovering mode flyers?
#3) The popular consensus is that the rule you say which allows necron to avoid this damage is no longer applicable with this edition.
#4) Night scythes use to be simply skimmer models, which references the typical terminology of disembark as opposed to the terminology used in the Crash or burn section why do you think this is?
#5) On pg 80 under Effects of Damage of Passengers under both entry of wrecked the terminology of disembark takes place immediately as opposed to the previous Crash and burn entry. YET WHEN YOU LOOK AT EXPLODES THE RULES READ THAT THE UNIT IS AGAIN DAMAGED AND THE TERMINOLOGY OF "DISEMBARK" ISN'T USE AGAIN. Do you still honestly think this is a coincidence?

Thank you for your time and I highly suggest pro necron players take a look at how anything using the terminology disembark are being used wrong, a wreck you can disembark out of but an explosion is simply placed models inside the wreckage.

In the event of the flyer crash smash creating a large blast marker where they are told to BE PLACED within 3" of that marker. This is to represent the scattered survivors who got lucky. In short were your rules still equipped for skimmers rather than transports it would see more use than it does today. Even then not really an explodes result will cause them to not be withdrawn and held in reserves. Disembarking is a very well outlined rule... please learn it and when it applies.

Also, I think since our pro-necron players have yet to answer at all since this post, we might have at last reached a conclusion. The terminology of "place models" isn't the same as "disembark". the BRB makes the terminology difference many times in the book.

Examples of damage to passengers states

wrecked they say to disembark 3 inches rather than 6

Explodes they say to place.

Crash and burn which is the result that happens due to being wreck or destroyed and maintaining a flyer stat they say to place rather than disembark. regardless of even this clarification the scripting of crash and burn states the occupants inside are dealt strength 10, no armor save hits before the ability to even place or disembark becomes an issue. I agree that any survivors could possibly be thrown back into reserves as my statement about the difference of these two things isn't black and white but is sure seems that way and I do a lot of TOing at my leagues and store. So until GW does something I would say RAW actually handles this, still i wouldn't be opposed to someone bringing it up with their enemy and saying "Would you have a problem with me playing this way?"

That being said, i would be worried that person would mislead the enemy that the option many of us now see a rules correlation with wouldn't even be suggested at the truth. Either way I assume many necron players will try and pull a fast one on these rules still but it was nice to make a final line statement about it and why it will not be allowed when i see it used.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Also, I think since our pro-necron players have yet to answer at all since this post, we might have at last reached a conclusion. The terminology of "place models" isn't the same as "disembark". the BRB makes the terminology difference many times in the book.

Examples of damage to passengers states

wrecked they say to disembark 3 inches rather than 6

Explodes they say to place.

Crash and burn which is the result that happens due to being wreck or destroyed and maintaining a flyer stat they say to place rather than disembark. regardless of even this clarification the scripting of crash and burn states the occupants inside are dealt strength 10, no armor save hits before the ability to even place or disembark becomes an issue. I agree that any survivors could possibly be thrown back into reserves as my statement about the difference of these two things isn't black and white but is sure seems that way and I do a lot of TOing at my leagues and store. So until GW does something I would say RAW actually handles this, still i wouldn't be opposed to someone bringing it up with their enemy and saying "Would you have a problem with me playing this way?"

That being said, i would be worried that person would mislead the enemy that the option many of us now see a rules correlation with wouldn't even be suggested at the truth. Either way I assume many necron players will try and pull a fast one on these rules still but it was nice to make a final line statement about it and why it will not be allowed when i see it used.

As an aside point here, to the wording of "place" vs "disembark" when an explosion occurs --

To 'disembark' by the game mechanics in 6th edition, the model must be placed within base contact of the access point, then move no more than the 3" (or 6") away from the vehicle. When said vehicle is removed from play due to an "explosion" result, there is no access point for the model to make contact with and disembark. That is why they are simply "placed" in the crater afterwards. To assert that they have not disembarked, and therefore suffer no ill results of having their transport destroyed, is a pure example of rules lawyering for advantage. The mechanic keyword is different solely because it *needs* to be, otherwise the game breaks.

Just my quick input. Again, RAW, necron flyer riders take the s10 hits until an FAQ would deem otherwise. Order of Operations here shows clearly when the hits are resolved.

Hahah the Necron hate is strong here!

Rule lawyering makes people think that Necrons step through worm holes just to taste the delicious burning flames of their exploding fliers and then magically appear somewhere else after doing so....

An entire forum or magic bullet believers.

Or, just possibly, thats what the rules say.

Protip: claiming people are arguing due to X hate is likely to result in your "contribution" to the thread being ignored as irrelevant. For all you know there are necron players arguing for the hits (there are, or at least 1, but dont let facts get in the way of your rant)

 Shinkaze wrote:
Hahah the Necron hate is strong here!

Rule lawyering makes people think that Necrons step through worm holes just to taste the delicious burning flames of their exploding fliers and then magically appear somewhere else after doing so....

An entire forum or magic bullet believers.

An exact case of nothing intelligently contributed to make your case simply insults. FYI I love the Necrons though their new version of fluff makes me groan a bit but nothing major i just enjoyed the mindless aspect more. That being said, i hold no hate for them one of my favorite enemies to fight and normally makes for great fights. But me and my friend alex both argee with the rules as written and even from his mouth he agrees that it simply isn't nessicary to maintain that the 5th edition codex's rules translate to this edition correctly at all nor should they now considering what other races face.

Shinaze, if you want to debate i'd love to have that with you but if you want to whine because we are saying something might be negatively impacting the necrons then i fear life must leave you very frustrated when it is trying to ruin your day as oppose to a group of people trying to figure out a rule which will be most widely accepted.

 Shinkaze wrote:
Hahah the Necron hate is strong here!

Rule lawyering makes people think that Necrons step through worm holes just to taste the delicious burning flames of their exploding fliers and then magically appear somewhere else after doing so....

An entire forum or magic bullet believers.

Assigning bias because you disagree isn't a great idea.
And you act like there is absolutely zero fluff supporting it. Hint - there is fluff supporting the models taking the hits.

1. Since units no longer disembark from an exploded vehicle (including crashed Flyers) you cannot go into Reserve instead of disembarking. This means they take the hits, and are placed on the table and will be able to roll for RP/EL at the end of the phase.

2. You treat being placed on the table as the disembarking. Therefore, you take the hits, the survivors go into reserve, and since there is no unit on the table you do not get to roll RP/EL (since there is no allowance to roll for units not in play).

Happyjew wrote:
1. Since units no longer disembark from an exploded vehicle (including crashed Flyers) you cannot go into Reserve instead of disembarking. This means they take the hits, and are placed on the table and will be able to roll for RP/EL at the end of the phase.

2. You treat being placed on the table as the disembarking. Therefore, you take the hits, the survivors go into reserve, and since there is no unit on the table you do not get to roll RP/EL (since there is no allowance to roll for units not in play).

exactly, I honestly could care less how they want to treat the 2nd half if they want to twist the rules to mean that... egh fine the survivors would be very minor at best and i could see it as a desperate chance to try and get soliders through a gate before it suddenly explodes

How many times in 6th edition has GW ignored RAW when releasing their errata and FAQs? I'm surprised they haven't already addressed this one.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
How many times in 6th edition has GW ignored RAW when releasing their errata and FAQs? I'm surprised they haven't already addressed this one.

Doesn't matter. Until they explicitly ignore it with a FAQ for this, until than they'll keep taking Str10 hits

It does matter since it explicitly demonstrates that the developers don't consistently use RAW to interpret rules.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It does matter since it explicitly demonstrates that the developers don't consistently use RAW to interpret rules.

As there is no faq to support you in this instance, or rules to support you I'm willing to say you're strecthing.

Yes, you can use that argument to try and determine RAI.
You cannot use it to determine RAW until it's FAQed.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It does matter since it explicitly demonstrates that the developers don't consistently use RAW to interpret rules.

They have *never* used RAW and RAW only. See myriad 5th ed examples (falchions, SitW inside vehicles, etc) for this

Does not alter that, sans a FAQ to the contrary, RAW is the best start you have in determining how a rule should play. And given there is NO RAI either way on this that is convincing, and you have a rule that works perfectly well, go with the written rules.

I don't think raw is the de facto solution as it has it's own assorted issues and sometimes is just flat out wrong. It may be preferred by some but that's as far as I'd go there. Sometimes it presents a good solution and that's when it's a good choice. Applying it blindly is fail IMO.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't think raw is the de facto solution as it has it's own assorted issues and sometimes is just flat out wrong. It may be preferred by some but that's as far as I'd go there. Sometimes it presents a good solution and that's when it's a good choice. Applying it blindly is fail IMO.

You're right lets play fluff. Everyone loses because the Space Marines win...

If you want to go make up your own house rules and play DozerHammer than by all means.

Until than though follow the rules and play 40k

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't think raw is the de facto solution as it has it's own assorted issues and sometimes is just flat out wrong. It may be preferred by some but that's as far as I'd go there. Sometimes it presents a good solution and that's when it's a good choice. Applying it blindly is fail IMO.

This isnt, as has been shown through this and other threads, following it blindly. You're ignoring that RAI shows the hits are still taken. Or not. Oh look, unclear RAI, who would have thought...

Play it as them not getting the hits if you like - but thats a houserule, currently. as long as your eyes are open to that fact thats good.

The arguement is pointless right til there is an FAQ, nearly all GT level tournament states that units in a NIght Scythe does not take a str 10 hit. If your store or players wants to make a house rule go for it, but if try to bring that arguement to a GT, good luck, you have more or a chance in getting a date with a model.

Sorry, the "houserule" is to play by the current rules as written? In what universe?

Oh, an care to cite some facts about the "nearly all" GT level tournaments that state this? Anything to back up your assertions, at all?

You have read the tenets, yes?

No one here has an official say. One word is just as good as another and even 1000 agree at the end of the day it doesn't change anything here. The important to take away from this is RAW has lost a lot of ground and according to the background they don't take the hit.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
How many times in 6th edition has GW ignored RAW when releasing their errata and FAQs? I'm surprised they haven't already addressed this one.

Doesn't matter. Until they explicitly ignore it with a FAQ for this, until than they'll keep taking Str10 hits

correct, it simply isn't correct if you do it any other way till GW gives the the go ahead to not follow the rules.

 mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
nearly all GT level tournament states that units in a NIght Scythe does not take a str 10 hit

Citation needed.

Here are the following GT's that has stated,

Nova GT
Beaky Con GT
Fest of Blades GT
Comikaze Con GT
11th Company GT

these are some of the tournaments that has stated that units in Night Scythe does not a strg 10 hit when it is wreck or destoryed. Most GT tournanment tend to follow each other with ruling and FAQ. all you need to do is just search and read the rules.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.21.pdf
http://www.feastofblades.com/p/faqs.html

 mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
Here are the following GT's that has stated,

Nova GT
Beaky Con GT
Fest of Blades GT
Comikaze Con GT
11th Company GT

these are some of the tournaments that has stated that units in Night Scythe does not a strg 10 hit when it is wreck or destoryed. Most GT tournanment tend to follow each other with ruling and FAQ. all you need to do is just search and read the rules.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.21.pdf
http://www.feastofblades.com/p/faqs.html

None of which matters here as the only allowed FAQs are the GW FAQs.

true your right and wrong at the sametime, you forget that there isn't any FAQ on the contents about the what happens to units in a NIght Scythe when it wrecks or is destoryed. So, to save time and any arugments. Judges from these tournaments stated what is RAI or RAW...who cares......carry on have a nice day

Fest of Blades FAQ:
"Can Anrakyr use his Mind of the Machine ability from a command barge? 
Yes."
Blatantly against the actual RAW. Not a suitable source for useful information.

Nova FAQ:
"Mindshackle Scarabs vs. Challenges – If the bearer of MSS is in base contact with one or more
enemy models at the start of the Fight sub-phase, randomize among them to determine which
model is affected at the same time as any challenges are issued. Should this model
immediately thereafter accept or deny a challenge and be moved out of base contact with the
prior models, carry out the MSS effects as they were rolled regardless. In subsequent Fight
Sub-phases, if the bearer of the MSS is still locked in the challenge, resolve all further MSS
rolls against the challenger (by rule, the only model considered to be in base contact)."

Goes against the actual rules - active player gets to decide order.

Nova FAQ, Tyranid section:
"Round fractions down for purposes of “Where is it?”"
The first Nid FAQ (1.0 - because 1.1 is current and the change is not magenta) changed Where is it? to Shrouded. There's no fraction to round.

Not really getting much support from these FAQs.

man are you blind or what check again, it clearly states it in their FAQ

this is straight from FOB

Necrons
1.Do you get to use “ever living,” even though the unit is removed by sweeping advance? 
Yes.
2.If my model is “removed from play,” can I still use ever living? 
No.
3.If my night scythe is destroyed do the models inside take a S10 hit?
No.
4.How much of a model must I move over to do a sweep attack? 
Any non-decorative part and any non-zero amount.
5.Can Anrakyr use his Mind of the Machine ability from a command barge? 
Yes.

Dozer - again, noone is saying hey are "official". However one side has the rules spot on, the other doesnt and just has very, very flaky "RAI" that isnt close to 100% reliable even in this.

mrblacksunshine - erm, rigeld was pointing out that the ruling in the FAQs are just plain wrong, so clinging to them as being "RAW" is just..wrong.

Claiming Anrakyr can use MitM while embarked when this clearly contradicts the actual rules doesnt help lend weight to the FAQ as being reliable.

May be the fact that there isn't any FAQ on Night Scythe's passengers taking the S10 hits because GW thought it was rather clear as day in RAW? People arguing that they do not take the hit seems to believe their wishful version is the absolute version, even though it's not stated anywhere officially, GT isn't official, if you want to run homebrew rules though, no one here will stop you.

Off topic: I also wish that open topped transport does S3 hits on passengers in an explosion, may be they forgot to add it into the BRB(just like that "RAI" part in necron's 5th ed codex that overruled the Crash and Burn... but I'd still play by the rules that I'll take S4 hits in an explosion. It doesn't matter if the fact may nerf the unit I want to play as compared to last ed, this ed is written this way, either play by RAW or make your own houserule, but this is the YMDC section, not the proposed rule section, so arguing that x and y houseruled this and that doesn't make any sense here.

Lastly, this is a necron player who apparently hates his own army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dozer - again, noone is saying hey are "official". However one side has the rules spot on, the other doesnt and just has very, very flaky "RAI" that isnt close to 100% reliable...

That's quite rich seeing your track record versus GW errata and FAQs.

 mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
man are you blind or what check again, it clearly states it in their FAQ

I'm not sure you understood my post. I'm well aware of what their FAQ says. I also noted that they are literally changing rules for no reason - the MitM question they have was covered in 5th (and disallowed), the basic rules haven't changed in 6th (meaning it's still disallowed) and they ignored that and said it is allowed.

GT's that ignore the rulebook shouldn't be used as a basis for your argument.

hello , not sure if this helps but i found this article from gw.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=2600086-gws&_requestid=179307

Paragraph from the article

The Night Scythe is a dedicated transport that can be taken by a unit of Necron Warriors, Necron Immortals, Deathmarks or Lychguard. In terms of transport capacity, it can carry 15 Necrons into battle, though you'd be hard-pressed to figure out where they would fit inside. That's because they're not inside the Night Scythe - they're waiting off-world, ready to be deployed through the wormhole portal mounted beneath the Night Scythe. This means that if the Night Scythe is destroyed in battle, the unit doesn't get destroyed with it, they simply arrive as reserves instead. Much like the Doom Scythe, the Night Scythe also has a tesla destructor, making it perfect for taking on enemy aircraft once it's delivered its squad into the heat of battle.

Erebus83 wrote:


The Night Scythe is a dedicated transport that can be taken by a unit of Necron Warriors, Necron Immortals, Deathmarks or Lychguard. In terms of transport capacity, it can carry 15 Necrons.

That's the rules part of it. 6th edition changed the explosion part on transports and the Necron FAQ has given no permission to ignore it. Take the hits, then go to reserves.

Yeah... doesn't help at all.

Erebus83 has it right.

Raw they take hits.

We don't know anything else one way or the other. Maybe an FAQ will help.

But RAI they don't. Stop trying to say RAW > RAI . It isn't.

I came across an argument someone made on this very topic. http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2012/09/6th-edition-rulings-necron-night-scythes-crash-and-burn-and-embarked-models/#more-993

He seems to use rules that the U.S. Supreme Court uses to determine rules, with supporting information in the form of cannons. It seems to me that if there is a problem with any of his interpretations, it would be with the supporting cannons he uses, if a conflict does exist.

If any of you see any conflicts with his logic, please feel free to share.

My personal view is that there is insufficient information to resolve this conflict RAW so until an FAQ addresses the situation, I just discuss it with any other players and arrive at an agreement one way or the other. I just want to get any arguments out of the way and get to the fun of playing the game.

Pdelski wrote:
I came across an argument someone made on this very topic. http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2012/09/6th-edition-rulings-necron-night-scythes-crash-and-burn-and-embarked-models/#more-993

He seems to use rules that the U.S. Supreme Court uses to determine rules, with supporting information in the form of cannons. It seems to me that if there is a problem with any of his interpretations, it would be with the supporting cannons he uses, if a conflict does exist.

If any of you see any conflicts with his logic, please feel free to share.

My personal view is that there is insufficient information to resolve this conflict RAW so until an FAQ addresses the situation, I just discuss it with any other players and arrive at an agreement one way or the other. I just want to get any arguments out of the way and get to the fun of playing the game.

He's wrong because he assumes the Night Scythe rule entirely replaces Crash and Burn instead of just the conflicting portion.
His argument that "If the unit is placed into reserve, none of the models, even the surviving ones, can be placed according to the Night Scythe’s rule. " fails either a) the models are placed - just placed in reserve or b) since step 5 references step 4 and step 4 is replaced, step 5 is now redundant and is "replaced" with nothing per the conflict resolution.

In short, theruleslawyers.com isn't always right.

Dozer Blades wrote:But RAI they don't. Stop trying to say RAW > RAI . It isn't.

And when did GW tell you what they intended the rule to be? Then quit trying to pass off your opinion on what the rule should be as anything else.

Thank you for you observations. This is exactly why I value alternate opinions. No matter how right something may seem, there may be another perspective that is missed.

I did have another thought though, and I think it was mentioned earlier on a previous tread related to this topic, but I'm not sure. Assuming that any wounds were taken on a necron unit during a night scythe destruction , wouldn't those models be removed as a casualty, which would trigger an RP roll? If so, how would the RP counters and unit coherency be dealt with? The Night Scythe rule says to put survivors in reserve, and RP say to put counters on the table. This seems to break the game.

I would assume that there would be no counters since the unit would be in reserve. And there is no RP rule for units in reserve.

It just makes 0 sense from a fluff stand point, that they would take the wounds and then appear elsewhere("Sir it looks like were about to crash" "Well then we should definitely jump through the wormhole and crash, then using our now incinerated teleportation technology we should teleport to the other side of the field so that we can't possibly hold that objective." "But sir wouldn't it make more sense to just enter from that side anyway? Or stay here and try and hold the objective" " Shut-up you, were Newcrons now, not cold calculating logical crons anymore"). Which is why them taking the hits is not rules as intended.

Not often does it happen where the fluff states one thing that the rules then proceed to do the opposite.

The crons are never aboard(fluff wise) and thus in the world of the fluff wouldn't take damage from the flyer crashing. With the people that I play with( a friendly group) we play with rules how they are intended to be played, I mean the fluff is there to direct a narrative not lie to you.

Now then if I play with a rules lawyer I'll play with them taking hits, cause I'm not a dick and wouldn't want to argue over what amounts to plastic toys that are played to have fun. I mean if I really wanted to we could go over every single rule and figure out all the ways to exploit every rule, but that just seems time consuming and not very fun.

I am sure that a future faq will sort this out, I mean for all I know the way people are saying the Nightscythe works, with the transported units taking str10 hits then going into reserves, could just be a crippling downside to the Nightscythe that was intended to justify it's point cost. I really really doubt it, but maybe.

But if people want to get super technical and do everything purely raw for their benefit, then hopefully they have the decency to tell you before hand so that you can write your list accordingly. I mean it would be kind of a dick move to rule lawyer someone after they brought their army unaware and you built yours to take advantage of said weakness.

Pdelski wrote:
The Night Scythe rule says to put survivors in reserve, and RP say to put counters on the table. This seems to break the game.

The game doesn't break.
A similar situation can already happen.

Unit of Deathmarks with a Veiltek are in the path of a Volcanic Eruption (page 367) and have 3 models fail the initiative test and die. 3 counters are placed.

The unit decides to Veil to another marked target but rolls poorly for scatter, generating a mishap. They roll a 4 on the mishap table, placing the unit in Ongoing Reserves.
What happens to the RP tokens? Does the game break, or are the tokens removed because there's no way for them to be placed in coherency?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher wrote:
It just makes 0 sense from a fluff stand point, that they would take the wounds and then appear elsewhere("Sir it looks like were about to crash" "Well then we should definitely jump through the wormhole and crash, then using our now incinerated teleportation technology we should teleport to the other side of the field so that we can't possibly hold that objective." "But sir wouldn't it make more sense to just enter from that side anyway? Or stay here and try and hold the objective" " Shut-up you, were Newcrons now, not cold calculating logical crons anymore"). Which is why them taking the hits is not rules as intended.

Yeah, it's completely impossible for the destruction of the portal to cause any kind of backlash through it and be destroyed. If it was, surely there'd be some fluff written about it!
Oh. There was. Oops.

Not often does it happen where the fluff states one thing that the rules then proceed to do the opposite.

Shadows in the Warp. Doom of Malantai.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
But RAI they don't. Stop trying to say RAW > RAI . It isn't.

Good thing you aren't being taken seriously right now. (see i can hurl insults without contributing as well) dozer, I know you want this to happen the way you are but you need to explain a few things to your adversarial view point in order to gain creditability which the RAW crew has done here.

RAI is always a slope that makes you look foolish because you would think RAI a smoke screen from a rhino could used during a shooting attack, or searchlights for that matter, hell in fluff an ork should survive his head being decapitated and thus should have FNP. The reason why a large porition do not accept RAI as this circumstance is these reason

GW painstakingly explains the terms disembark and place right within the Vehicle Damage results.

All passengers now have to DISEMBARK if the vehicle wrecks, Except for flyers which take the Crash and Burn Result.

All Passengers now have to BE PLACED WITHIN if the vehicle Explodes, Except for flyer which take the Crash and Burn Result.

It doesn't matter if you think the necron's are waiting off world at this time. If you actually read these rules i just stated which determine everything in the game, Movement phase, Shooting Phase, Assault phase are all determined by the BRB and the fact that tourneys backing the decision of RAW is the only viable way to play this till GW offically says something otherwise. I know your rule in 5th edition was cool, but in 5th edition it was merely a skimmer which couldn't fly 36 inches, and disembark it's unit right then and there 6 additional inches. Because it no longer is a skimmer is unfortunately became the flyer which is an amazing vehicle in all ways except this caveat to the rules.

So Dozer, please if you aren't going to come up with a counter arguement please see yourself out of the argument. You are just looking like an ass

rigeld2 wrote:

Yeah, it's completely impossible for the destruction of the portal to cause any kind of backlash through it and be destroyed. If it was, surely there'd be some fluff written about it!
Oh. There was. Oops.

Not often does it happen where the fluff states one thing that the rules then proceed to do the opposite.

Shadows in the Warp. Doom of Malantai.

Yes cause that was competely about the necrons and how the Nightscyhes work and is totally related /sarcasm.

Seriously though, the necrons aren't even mentioned. Not sure what you were getting at.

Punisher wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Yeah, it's completely impossible for the destruction of the portal to cause any kind of backlash through it and be destroyed. If it was, surely there'd be some fluff written about it!
Oh. There was. Oops.

Not often does it happen where the fluff states one thing that the rules then proceed to do the opposite.

Shadows in the Warp. Doom of Malantai.

Yes cause that was competely about the necrons and how the Nightscyhes work and is totally related /sarcasm.

The fluff for Shadows says its everywhere, disrupting communications and Psykers for light years around... But rules wise it can't penetrate a tin can. WAT.

The Doom of Malanntai essentially singlehandedly destroyed an Eldar Craftworld. Rules-wise he's not even close.

Seriously though, the necrons aren't even mentioned. Not sure what you were getting at.

There's been a reference a few times to a BL book (I think - cant find it atm) where a Night Scythe is destroyed and there's feedback through the portal, damaging/destroying the waiting Necrons.

Punisher wrote:
It just makes 0 sense from a fluff stand point, that they would take the wounds and then appear elsewhere("Sir it looks like were about to crash" "Well then we should definitely jump through the wormhole and crash, then using our now incinerated teleportation technology we should teleport to the other side of the field so that we can't possibly hold that objective." "But sir wouldn't it make more sense to just enter from that side anyway? Or stay here and try and hold the objective" " Shut-up you, were Newcrons now, not cold calculating logical crons anymore"). Which is why them taking the hits is not rules as intended.

Not often does it happen where the fluff states one thing that the rules then proceed to do the opposite.

The crons are never aboard(fluff wise) and thus in the world of the fluff wouldn't take damage from the flyer crashing. With the people that I play with( a friendly group) we play with rules how they are intended to be played, I mean the fluff is there to direct a narrative not lie to you.

Now then if I play with a rules lawyer I'll play with them taking slowed hits, cause I'm not a dick and wouldn't want to argue over plastic toys that are played to have fun. I mean if I really wanted to we could go over every single rule and figure out all the ways to exploit every rule, but that just seems time consuming and not very fun.

I am sure that a future faq will sort this out, I mean for all I know the way people are saying the Nightscythe works, with the transported units taking str10 hits then going into reserves, could just be a crippling downside to the Nightscythe that was intended to justify it's point cost. I really really doubt it, but maybe.

But if people want to get super technical and do everything purely raw for their benefit, then hopefully they have the decency to tell you before hand so that you can write your list accordingly. I mean it would be kind of a dick move to rule lawyer someone after they brought their army unaware and you built yours to take advantage of said weakness.

From a forging a narrative stand point you are giving yourself an element of absolute control. Too many factors are unknown in a RP standpoint, and the stories have shown stories to support the main rulebook but here allow me to explain how it is entirely possible to have this rule make sense from a storyline perspective.

Moving through the air like a knife through flesh, Sorotek of the Tombworld Styx sends his order to take out it's objective on the Tau sept world of Aquain-42. Analyzing the battlefield it suggests that necron soliders will be arriving after the strike of Sorotek's Night scythe climbs to a high altitude to remain unnoticed and send imagery of the battlefield to the crypteks for assessments. Drawning within a mile or so of the enemy battleline the weapons batteries hum with necrotic energies as they unleash a volley of electricity upon the Pathfinders holding in treeline waiting for the Necron foot solider advance. The weapons fire and have carved through the armor of these snipers and the last reminders of their bodies lay dismembered in agony on the battlefield for anyone who dares draw close to the Necron. Drawing close to the objective set forth scanners relay the crisis suit commander understanding the offensive against their capital tomb, Shas'O Tumery. Increasing speed and charging the portal as it begins another dive bomb suddenly the crafty tau commander uncloaks a mysterious turret to the Necron as it charges up 4 fragmentation plasma casters (made up term i know) unleashing a salvo of chilled plasma in all directions toward the nightscythe. But it's too late, without time to dodge the volley the blue arrows punch through the formidable just tearing open it's engines suddenly coling in and dragging the unit in stand by into it's malfunctionin hull and before time is even able to be assessed for escape the hull comes crashing down! Only two Deathmarks designated as Tumery's hunters manage to re-activate the portal in time and escape their firey tomb the rest of their unit however haven't... the Tau's Gambit now costs Necron Lord Sorotek dearly... but so too will the Tau pay for this for the horde now approaches ready for vengeance

(excuse typos i don't plan to make this a masterpiece)

rigeld2 wrote:

The fluff for Shadows says its everywhere, disrupting communications and Psykers for light years around... But rules wise it can't penetrate a tin can. WAT.

The Doom of Malanntai essentially singlehandedly destroyed an Eldar Craftworld. Rules-wise he's not even close.

Ah ok that context makes more sense. But that's just rules adding in special characters so that you can play them, I mean you can defeat a swarmlord, but in the fluff you can't. I mean the necrons in the last codex fielded literal gods that could be taken out reliably by a 5 man scout sniper squad. A characters strength adjusts to the tabletop all the time. What doesn't happen often is GW saying that the necrons who are supposedly on another planet crash and burn when a nightscythe crashes... It just doesn't make any sense.

Punisher wrote:
But if people want to get super technical and do everything purely raw for their benefit, then hopefully they have the decency to tell you before hand so that you can write your list accordingly. I mean it would be kind of a dick move to rule lawyer someone after they brought their army unaware and you built yours to take advantage of said weakness.

Playing by the rules isn't being a rules lawyer, nor does it mean someone benefits over someone else. If this were the case then 40k would be played just like Inquisitor, "Here's some rules, but feel free to do what you want to make the story right". That kind of ruleset doesn't work in a competitive environment.

At no point before a game should anyone have to say "Hey I play by the rules in the rulebook, is that ok?"

IamCaboose wrote:

Punisher wrote:
But if people want to get super technical and do everything purely raw for their benefit, then hopefully they have the decency to tell you before hand so that you can write your list accordingly. I mean it would be kind of a dick move to rule lawyer someone after they brought their army unaware and you built yours to take advantage of said weakness.

Playing by the rules isn't being a rules lawyer, nor does it mean someone benefits over someone else. If this were the case then 40k would be played just like Inquisitor, "Here's some rules, but feel free to do what you want to make the story right". That kind of ruleset doesn't work in a competitive environment.

At no point before a game should anyone have to say "Hey I play by the rules in the rulebook, is that ok?"

But it does mean someone benefits over someone else, cause if they interpreted the rules differently then when they came up with their list it didn't account for instance loosing all their troops when the transport blew up. In a competitive environment I agree that the rules should be set and that both parties should be informed of muddled rulings before either is required to submit a list. So for a tournament both players should be aware of how the nightscythe will be ruled, and if both know beforehand thats fair. But in a LGS where 2 different interpretations can be made prior to the game there is a definite advantage for one.

Your right that no one should have to say "Hey I play by the rules in the rulebook, is that ok?" but on a rule that is a muddled as this is(just look at how many threads are on this and people arguing both sides) there should be a understanding before the game is played/lists drawn out.

Punisher wrote:
Ah ok that context makes more sense. But that's just rules adding in special characters so that you can play them, I mean you can defeat a swarmlord, but in the fluff you can't. I mean the necrons in the last codex fielded literal gods that could be taken out reliably by a 5 man scout sniper squad. A characters strength adjusts to the tabletop all the time. What doesn't happen often is GW saying that the necrons who are supposedly on another planet crash and burn when a nightscythe crashes... It just doesn't make any sense.

The Swarmlord dies all the time - even in his fluff. He's just immortal because the Hive Mind keeps recreating him.
And as I said - GW has said that. I just can't remember which book. It's been mentioned in almost every one of these Night Scythe threads.
And I've described how it "makes sense." You're just refusing to accept that.

I'm sure if I had the time is find another example of fluff not being anywhere near rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher wrote:
Your right that no one should have to say "Hey I play by the rules in the rulebook, is that ok?" but on a rule that is a muddled as this is(just look at how many threads are on this and people arguing both sides) there should be a understanding before the game is played/lists drawn out.

The way I read the rules, Tyranids always win. I can't show you using rules why that is, you should just accept that's how the rules work.

That's essentially what the "no hits" side is doing - RAW has been shown over and over, and it always falls to "but the fluff!"
Good. Great even. But if I sit down to a game, the first thing on my mind is not going to be "Hmmm... If he plays by the fluff I can rules lawyer him and kill all his dudemen!"

People are arguing the "no hits" side purely from fluff at this point. The rule isn't muddled, some people just refuse to accept that the fluff doesn't always fit the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

That's essentially what the "no hits" side is doing - RAW has been shown over and over, and it always falls to "but the fluff!"
Good. Great even. But if I sit down to a game, the first thing on my mind is not going to be "Hmmm... If he plays by the fluff I can rules lawyer him and kill all his dudemen!"

People are arguing the "no hits" side purely from fluff at this point. The rule isn't muddled, some people just refuse to accept that the fluff doesn't always fit the rules.

Well technically to remove a casualty you have to remove a model from the board and since the models are never on the board(there not allowed to disembark)...The only other way casualties occur is if they remain in reserve at the end of the game. But now your saying that reserved units take casualties during the game... How can a wound be passed to a unit in reserve it doesn't really.

The rules are muddled, there are plenty of ways to interpret what is said because there is no order given to what is happening or any information on how to deal with models not on the table like in this example.

This is simply something that should be clarified by both parties before the game takes place or else you just are TFG at your LGS. I mean I have said that I play by your version of RAW even though I don't agree with it, if my opponent plays that way and I have been informed beforehand.

It's not just fluff it's murky rules and the only fair way is for both parties to be on the same understanding prior to a match. Now if this is a tournament then both players should have in their own time found out the rulings that would be used(ya know contact the tournament organizers or read any FAQ they may have).

Punisher wrote:
Well technically to remove a casualty you have to remove a model from the board and since the models are never on the board(there not allowed to disembark)...The only other way casualties occur is if they remain in reserve at the end of the game. But now your saying that reserved units take casualties during the game... How can a wound be passed to a unit in reserve it doesn't really.

No, models are removed from play as a casualty, not necessarily from the board.

The rules are muddled, there are plenty of ways to interpret what is said because there is no order given to what is happening or any information on how to deal with models not on the table like in this example.

They are on the board. They're an embarked unit per the rules. To say they aren't is plain wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Well technically to remove a casualty you have to remove a model from the board and since the models are never on the board(there not allowed to disembark)...The only other way casualties occur is if they remain in reserve at the end of the game. But now your saying that reserved units take casualties during the game... How can a wound be passed to a unit in reserve it doesn't really.

No, models are removed from play as a casualty, not necessarily from the board.

The rules are muddled, there are plenty of ways to interpret what is said because there is no order given to what is happening or any information on how to deal with models not on the table like in this example.

They are on the board. They're an embarked unit per the rules. To say they aren't is plain wrong.

Well then it just comes down to a order of operations, what happens first? Since the disembarking is no longer apart of 6th rules since the flyers are now different when does the nightscythes unit enter reserves? One could argue that they enter reserves prior to the unit receiving the hit since disembarking is now a vague/useless reference point. One could also argue that they take the hit before they are moved to reserves. All I am saying is that the rules are murky and can be interpreted different ways. And with murky rules you and your opponent should discuss them on a case by case basis because they may disagree with your train of thought.

Now I personally believe that they don't take the hits and enter reserves first, cause that makes more sense to me fluff wise. But from a balance perspective them taking the hits before being reserved could help turn the meta away from flyer spam which is a very good thing. There are pros to both sides, and two different ways of looking at it. I mean if you really really wanted to you could say that since the nightscythes says the unit can't disembark and the BRB says "any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties." you could say the necrons are just dead. But again that just doesn't seem right.

Punisher wrote:
Since the disembarking is no longer apart of 6th rules since the flyers are now different when does the nightscythes unit enter reserves?

Technically? Never. They take the hits and are placed on the table. Of course this means if any one model survives the unit will be able to roll for RP since there will be counters on the table. However, if you want the survivor(s) to be placed in Reserve and not get to roll RP that is fine by me.

Happyjew wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Since the disembarking is no longer apart of 6th rules since the flyers are now different when does the nightscythes unit enter reserves?

Technically? Never. They take the hits and are placed on the table. Of course this means if any one model survives the unit will be able to roll for RP since there will be counters on the table. However, if you want the survivor(s) to be placed in Reserve and not get to roll RP that is fine by me.

Or are they just placed in reserves? The section says "If the nightscythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve" since disembark is now meaningless the instead clause still activates. So if the nightscythe is destroyed the embarked unit enters reserve. There is no timing given so it could be interpreted as immediately or after other factors, there is no order given. So you could interpret it as the unit just goes into reserves and you can't wound units in reserves, they're no longer on the table/battlefield.

I've shown that the rules equate disembarking and placing. Therefore your most recent argument fails.

Punisher wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Since the disembarking is no longer apart of 6th rules since the flyers are now different when does the nightscythes unit enter reserves?

Technically? Never. They take the hits and are placed on the table. Of course this means if any one model survives the unit will be able to roll for RP since there will be counters on the table. However, if you want the survivor(s) to be placed in Reserve and not get to roll RP that is fine by me.

Or are they just placed in reserves? The section says "If the nightscythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve" since disembark is now meaningless the instead clause still activates. So if the nightscythe is destroyed the embarked unit enters reserve. There is no timing given so it could be interpreted as immediately or after other factors, there is no order given. So you could interpret it as the unit just goes into reserves and you can't wound units in reserves, they're no longer on the table/battlefield.

If you don't disembark, you cannot do something instead of disembarking.

Happyjew wrote:

Punisher wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Since the disembarking is no longer apart of 6th rules since the flyers are now different when does the nightscythes unit enter reserves?

Technically? Never. They take the hits and are placed on the table. Of course this means if any one model survives the unit will be able to roll for RP since there will be counters on the table. However, if you want the survivor(s) to be placed in Reserve and not get to roll RP that is fine by me.

Or are they just placed in reserves? The section says "If the nightscythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve" since disembark is now meaningless the instead clause still activates. So if the nightscythe is destroyed the embarked unit enters reserve. There is no timing given so it could be interpreted as immediately or after other factors, there is no order given. So you could interpret it as the unit just goes into reserves and you can't wound units in reserves, they're no longer on the table/battlefield.

If you don't disembark, you cannot do something instead of disembarking.

Your not disembarking, you never were disembarking. The disembark reference is just and always has been a reference to when the unit goes into reserve.

Old way (5th) that it happened. Transport blew up, crons can't disembark, go to reserve. New way, transport blows up crons can't disembark(against the BRB and codex), go to reserve.

It's not a then they do this statement its just a statement, the disembark was just giving you a timing aspect which has now been removed so it can occur whenever so long as it is after the nightscythe is wreck/destroyed. It could happen never, it could happen immediately. The rules vague and is why so many people have differing opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've shown that the rules equate disembarking and placing. Therefore your most recent argument fails.

Well then you would be wrong. Disembarking =/= placing they are very different in this edition.

Just look at the section of effect of damage on passengers section in the BRB for transports(page 80). It states in wrecked that the passengers disembark but when it explodes they are placed. Showing that there is a difference between disembarking and being placed. You can't disembark from a vehicle if there is no vehicle, you are simply placed in it's ruins.

Punisher wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've shown that the rules equate disembarking and placing. Therefore your most recent argument fails.

Well then you would be wrong. Disembarking =/= placing they are very different in this edition.

Just look at the section of effect of damage on passengers section in the BRB for transports(page 80). It states in wrecked that the passengers disembark but when it explodes they are placed. Showing that there is a difference between disembarking and being placed. You can't disembark from a vehicle if there is no vehicle, you are simply placed in it's ruins.

rigeld2 wrote:

Aycee71 wrote:
My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

No, it doesn't.

To make them take the hits all you have to do is go with the fact that placing models is the same as disembarking. We have clues for that - the exploded vehicle FAQ being the best one.

Page 426 – The Game Summary, Transport Vehicles and Their
Passengers, Explodes (Other Effects).
Change the entry to read “The unit takes a number of Strength
4 AP – hits equal to the number of models in the unit.
Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be
and must take a Pinning test.”

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

Destroyed references both Explodes! and Wrecked results. Here we have "passengers are placed" equated with disembarking.

To make them go straight to reserve you must ignore a sentence, then apply the NS rule.


One of these methods ignores nothing and has rules support. The other ignores a sentence for no reason.

It's like I didn't already say this on page 2. Oh wait - I did.
Destroyed means both wrecked and explodes. Explodes places models, and yet the next FAQ asks about disembarking from a destroyed vehicle.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dozer - again, noone is saying hey are "official". However one side has the rules spot on, the other doesnt and just has very, very flaky "RAI" that isnt close to 100% reliable...

That's quite rich seeing your track record versus GW errata and FAQs.

What, spot on with rules, until they change them? You are acting like you are the all knowing Oracle of GWs RAI, when that is patently crap.

I can accept when GW changes rules, and that they have done so - I'm good with that. Same as they will have to do in this case IF they want them to escape the hits - which a BL book (better RAI than you can come up with, king of RAI that you are) says they take.

Can you contriibute something to this thread in line with the tenets of this forum? Possibly?

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I've shown that the rules equate disembarking and placing. Therefore your most recent argument fails.

Well then you would be wrong. Disembarking =/= placing they are very different in this edition.

Just look at the section of effect of damage on passengers section in the BRB for transports(page 80). It states in wrecked that the passengers disembark but when it explodes they are placed. Showing that there is a difference between disembarking and being placed. You can't disembark from a vehicle if there is no vehicle, you are simply placed in it's ruins.

rigeld2 wrote:

Aycee71 wrote:
My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

No, it doesn't.

To make them take the hits all you have to do is go with the fact that placing models is the same as disembarking. We have clues for that - the exploded vehicle FAQ being the best one.

Page 426 – The Game Summary, Transport Vehicles and Their
Passengers, Explodes (Other Effects).
Change the entry to read “The unit takes a number of Strength
4 AP – hits equal to the number of models in the unit.
Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be
and must take a Pinning test.”

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

Destroyed references both Explodes! and Wrecked results. Here we have "passengers are placed" equated with disembarking.

To make them go straight to reserve you must ignore a sentence, then apply the NS rule.


One of these methods ignores nothing and has rules support. The other ignores a sentence for no reason.

It's like I didn't already say this on page 2. Oh wait - I did.
Destroyed means both wrecked and explodes. Explodes places models, and yet the next FAQ asks about disembarking from a destroyed vehicle.

Your still wrong technically a unit can only disembark from a wrecked transport. So even though the destroyed references both of the results, you only disembark from 1 of those results the wrecked one and thus technically the answer only relates to the wrecked result, since it talks of the disembarked passengers which only come from a wrecked transport.
Using this train of thought the question of can you assault out of a exploded transport is still up in the air since it doesn't talk about the models from an exploded transport and following pure raw they can probably still assault. Not that I would ever play that way or try to enforce that technicality upon someone.

That's fair - then the Night Scythe rule does nothing as you never disembark.
Ill play against your Necrons if that's what you want to do.

So there the interpretation that the Night Scythe rule does nothing and you can declare an assault from the crater of your exploded transport (even if it wasn't an Assault Vehicle), and you suffer no effects from Stunned or Shaken while in the crater...

Or

Te reason they use "placed" instead of "disembark" is because the mechanic is different, but the results are the same, and they're equating the result.

Which way uses actual rules, doesn't twist anything, and ignores nothing........ Hmmmmmmm...

rigeld2 wrote:
That's fair - then the Night Scythe rule does nothing as you never disembark.
Ill play against your Necrons if that's what you want to do.

So there the interpretation that the Night Scythe rule does nothing and you can declare an assault from the crater of your exploded transport (even if it wasn't an Assault Vehicle), and you suffer no effects from Stunned or Shaken while in the crater...

Or

Te reason they use "placed" instead of "disembark" is because the mechanic is different, but the results are the same, and they're equating the result.

Which way uses actual rules, doesn't twist anything, and ignores nothing........ Hmmmmmmm...

Thats not what I said in relation to the night scythe it's that the timing could occur anytime after the vehicle is downed cause it doesn't state anymore so it could happen immediately or after the str10 hits depending on different perspectives. They would still go into reserves or the game would hang waiting, forever in your suggestion, for the nightscythe rule to occur.

The transport assaulting out is just raw how it is written. Your the one now making assumptions as to what GW means rather than what is written. Which is why you can't really play a game purely based on raw, cause you get issues like this. Where GW's fact clearly intends to not allow assaults after destroyed vehicles but it does allow them after exploded vehicles if you play it based purely upon raw.

Punisher wrote:
Thats not what I said in relation to the night scythe it's that the timing could occur anytime after the vehicle is downed cause it doesn't state anymore so it could happen immediately or after the str10 hits depending on different perspectives. They would still go into reserves or the game would hang waiting, forever in your suggestion, for the nightscythe rule to occur.

No, really the rule would do nothing. There's no waiting or the Night Scythe rule to happen because the trigger (destroyed and disembarking) can never happen.

The transport assaulting out is just raw how it is written. Your the one now making assumptions as to what GW means rather than what is written. Which is why you can't really play a game purely based on raw, cause you get issues like this. Where GW's fact clearly intends to not allow assaults after destroyed vehicles but it does allow them after exploded vehicles if you play it based purely upon raw.

You do understand the difference between absolute RAW and RAW where the game works, right? One is unplayable, the other uses context to decipher meaning.

RAW where the game works has the Necron unit take the hits and go into reserve. Absolute RAW has units getting out of exploded non-Assault Vehicles ignoring Shaken, Stunned, and Asssault restrictions, and the Necron Night Scythe rule absolutely useless.

Arguing the fluff for the NS creates more problems than it solves, IMO. You'd also try to avoid passengers being affected by a Stunned/Shaken result, and an embarked IC who might have an effect measured from the hull can't if he' not there.

Thing is, nothing in the rules allows you to avoid anything beyond being dumped on the table. Nothing says you're immune to other passenger effects, nothing says you can't have passenger benefits where applicable.

The thing is even labeled a transport, passengers disembark and can re-embark later. Making up a whole list of things that don't work when you could just use the existing rules seems a bit odd.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Or, just possibly, thats what the rules say.

Protip: claiming people are arguing due to X hate is likely to result in your "contribution" to the thread being ignored as irrelevant. For all you know there are necron players arguing for the hits (there are, or at least 1, but dont let facts get in the way of your rant)

Look I'm all for doing things the right away as long as it doesn't mean I have to be willfully ignorant at the same time. I enforce rules upon myself that my opponent isn't aware of all the time just as I argue for what is right regardless of what factions I play. I spent alot of time arguing for Pod armies to truly remain Pod armies even though there was a bunch of rules lawyers out there trying to screw them over.

My question to the 24/7 RAW crowd is this. Are you going to tell your opponent that their Wraithsword does nothing? There are only rules for Wraith Blades.

Just be a reasonable sport about it.

I see now that what this forum is really about is arguing about technicalities instead of trying to figure out what is the fair thing to do.

I just don't understand why people want to spend so much time playing toy soldiers but try to spoil it for others. It's cool though just do what makes you happy. Luckily the TOs from major events generally don't seem to feel the same way. I don't see alot of asinine rulings at any of the bigger GTs.

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Thats not what I said in relation to the night scythe it's that the timing could occur anytime after the vehicle is downed cause it doesn't state anymore so it could happen immediately or after the str10 hits depending on different perspectives. They would still go into reserves or the game would hang waiting, forever in your suggestion, for the nightscythe rule to occur.

No, really the rule would do nothing. There's no waiting or the Night Scythe rule to happen because the trigger (destroyed and disembarking) can never happen.

Except that the disembarking is not a prerequisite to go into reserve. The nightscythe being destroyed is. The order of operations remains the same as it was in 5th. Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to its codex, necrons go into reserve. Now it's Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to codex and BRB not have a disembark option here, necrons go into reserve. The only difference is that now there is no regular unit disembarking time so then it can easily be argued that once the nightscythe is destroyed the crons go into reserve without waiting for any other factors to occur.

Punisher wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Thats not what I said in relation to the night scythe it's that the timing could occur anytime after the vehicle is downed cause it doesn't state anymore so it could happen immediately or after the str10 hits depending on different perspectives. They would still go into reserves or the game would hang waiting, forever in your suggestion, for the nightscythe rule to occur.

No, really the rule would do nothing. There's no waiting or the Night Scythe rule to happen because the trigger (destroyed and disembarking) can never happen.

Except that the disembarking is not a prerequisite to go into reserve. The nightscythe being destroyed is. The order of operations remains the same as it was in 5th. Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to its codex, necrons go into reserve. Now it's Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to codex and BRB not have a disembark option here, necrons go into reserve. The only difference is that now there is no regular unit disembarking time so then it can easily be argued that once the nightscythe is destroyed the crons go into reserve without waiting for any other factors to occur.

Only if you read out of context. Or you live in a fantasy world made of lollipops and tootsie rolls. If it's the latter please let me know how to get there. As it is Place is ='s to disembark otherwise you break the rules according to the faqs

From a practical point of view I'd really like to see someone actually fit any of the following into a Night Scythe:

15 Immortals
6 Wraiths and 2 Destroyer Lords

You can't do it. That should tell you something right there.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Punisher wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Thats not what I said in relation to the night scythe it's that the timing could occur anytime after the vehicle is downed cause it doesn't state anymore so it could happen immediately or after the str10 hits depending on different perspectives. They would still go into reserves or the game would hang waiting, forever in your suggestion, for the nightscythe rule to occur.

No, really the rule would do nothing. There's no waiting or the Night Scythe rule to happen because the trigger (destroyed and disembarking) can never happen.

Except that the disembarking is not a prerequisite to go into reserve. The nightscythe being destroyed is. The order of operations remains the same as it was in 5th. Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to its codex, necrons go into reserve. Now it's Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to codex and BRB not have a disembark option here, necrons go into reserve. The only difference is that now there is no regular unit disembarking time so then it can easily be argued that once the nightscythe is destroyed the crons go into reserve without waiting for any other factors to occur.

Only if you read out of context. Or you live in a fantasy world made of lollipops and tootsie rolls. If it's the latter please let me know how to get there. As it is Place is ='s to disembark otherwise you break the rules according to the faqs

Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
From a practical point of view I'd really like to see someone actually fit any of the following into a Night Scythe:

15 Immortals
6 Wraiths and 2 Destroyer Lords

You can't do it. That should tell you something right there.

That according to the rules they are embarked, and they disembark, just like normal transport vehicle

Have you tried to fit 10 marines into a rhino, with their backpacks on? Does this mean marines are no longer "inside" a rhino? Or, perhaps, is your argument very, very poor bordering on the ludicrous, and is ignoring the tenets of this forum AGAIN.

So, RAI they take the hits, RAW they take the hits... what legs do you have left to stand on again?

You can actually fit 10 Marines in a rhino - sure it's a bit tight but definitely doable.

Nope, been tried. You cannot fit 10 marines without removing their power packs, and even then it involves them being contorted oddly

So, again, what relevance does your sugestion have? None

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You can actually fit 10 Marines in a rhino - sure it's a bit tight but definitely doable.

Good to know people are still trying to argue this...

Sorry but anyone who plays to play necron will either have to accept this ruling or enjoy their status as " TFG " within the group of their peers who have read these rules, and agreed with nearly all TO's in official and unofficial GW capacity. If an FAQ is released to clarify the use of your old rule from 5th edition the RAW crowd which are the ones who actually play this game more than just recreational will be able to accept your arguement with no issue. But until then, this is just like the Tau Codex entries before the FAQs in the past.

Punisher wrote:
Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.

If you don't equate the result you end up with silly interpretations. The context of the FAQs I quoted shows that GW equates the results. Using context to determine that does not mean its RAI.

And you absolutely cannot go into reserve if you don't disembark. See the word "instead"? That shows that you must have the option to do the first thing to be able to do the second. There's two prerequisites to going to Reserve. The first is destruction of the vehicle, the second is disembarking. What you're trying to do is replace multiple rules with a single rule. That's not how conflict resolution works.

Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.


Read up on some FAQ's than. As the BGB will often say, disembark the faq will call it placed and vice-versa. They interchange the word quite often. By that it is certainly RAW.

The FAQs do, however, equate the two terms.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, been tried. You cannot fit 10 marines without removing their power packs, and even then it involves them being contorted oddly

So, again, what relevance does your sugestion have? None

Is it just me or do you like being arrogant as hell? I mean take it easy dude... even Im not that rude... if you wanna get technical you're violating forum policy just by being condescending... believe me I know from our last few spats...

In case you hadnt noticed he was trying to lighten the atmosphere to be funny... deep breaths buddy, deep breaths


Unfortunately, as I cant believe Im saying this, but RAW is correct in that the models would be hit by the strength 10 ap 2... I consider it cheese d@%kery in the worst sense as its obvious what the intent was, resiliency, but alas... all the kings horses and all the kings men cant disprove this gooftastically written rule.

Actually it was another post which failed to add to the discussion - it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Again, "intent" is to avoid it? BL book says they dont, versus your intent of...?

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I consider it cheese d@%kery in the worst sense as its obvious what the intent was

I disagree that it's obvious. It's been pointed out a few times that the fluff supports both ways of intent (both taking the hits and not).

So by RAI you can easily make a case they don't take a hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually it was another post which failed to add to the discussion - it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

This is your opinion good Sir, I thought it was well placed and hilarious... have you ever actually tried to fit necrons inside of the nightscythe? it can be done... in pieces, but it can be done lol

I realize this which is why I didnt use this as the basis for more statement... you could by matt ward's growth on his neck and still not be able to know/argue his intent. That said, it is very "derpy" from a fan boy POV when the most technologically advanced race in the universe falls prey to their own designs via getting killed from crashing in a vehicle they arent actually inside of... best leave that to the orks, they love blowing themselves up.

I am agreeing that the models, as described by RAW which cant be argued, would be mostly obliterated... unless your opponents dice rolls suck... best take a rez orb and a phase shifter on the lord/overlord just incase

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So by RAI you can easily make a case they don't take a hit.

How's that? Beings placed is used as disembark all through the FAQ's? That just means RAW/RAI they're taking hits, unless you can read Ward's mind. Although if you could do that I'd ask what his next brainchild would be.

There actually seems to be a general consensus with only a few voices not agreeing. Or at least that's what it seems when threads devolve into side-shows and name-calling.
Aka, time for a thread closin'?

I'd say so Buffalo... this goose is cooked

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I'd say so Buffalo... this goose is cooked

It's not even the first goose of the season, but it's all good. When it's done right Goose is amazing!!

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.

If you don't equate the result you end up with silly interpretations. The context of the FAQs I quoted shows that GW equates the results. Using context to determine that does not mean its RAI.

And you absolutely cannot go into reserve if you don't disembark. See the word "instead"? That shows that you must have the option to do the first thing to be able to do the second. There's two prerequisites to going to Reserve. The first is destruction of the vehicle, the second is disembarking. What you're trying to do is replace multiple rules with a single rule. That's not how conflict resolution works.

Not replacing any rules the necrons are unable to disembark because that's what the codex says, they can't disembark is apart of the codex. It doesn't matter if disembarking doesn't exist in the BRB here they still can't do it and they never could. Nothing has changed here the BRB has adopted for flyers that no unit can disembark from a destroyed flyer from the codex necrons, what other flyers didn't adopt was the ability to be placed safely in reserves, thus other flying transports suffer a str10 hit because they don't have the NS's special rule.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You can actually fit 10 Marines in a rhino - sure it's a bit tight but definitely doable.

Good to know people are still trying to argue this...

Sorry but anyone who plays to play necron will either have to accept this ruling or enjoy their status as " TFG " within the group of their peers who have read these rules, and agreed with nearly all TO's in official and unofficial GW capacity. If an FAQ is released to clarify the use of your old rule from 5th edition the RAW crowd which are the ones who actually play this game more than just recreational will be able to accept your arguement with no issue. But until then, this is just like the Tau Codex entries before the FAQs in the past.

Right because the people who attend tournaments(which don't use your ruling) are the people who only play the game for recreation. And those who ignore the competitive environments ruling are clearly right. /sarcasm

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.


Read up on some FAQ's than. As the BGB will often say, disembark the faq will call it placed and vice-versa. They interchange the word quite often. By that it is certainly RAW.

You should re-read the FAQs never is placing used for disembark. You are getting what the RAW are confused with what the RAI are. Because RAW disembark =/= placed. Placed models are only mentioned in regards to exploded transports, whereas disembarked models models are referred to when it is a wrecked transport. The FAQ that you are referring to only talks about disembarked models and thus is only talking about models from a wrecked transport, those are RAW. Now if you want to interpret those rules differently from the RAW for your own RAI then your fine to do so, but don't think that's playing RAW because it's playing RAI.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The FAQs do, however, equate the two terms.

Never in the FAQ does disembark = placing.

INcorrect, as Rigeld showed a number of times. You must have missed them.

Dozer - no, you can "fluff" why they dont take a hit. You can also RAI they do take a hit, as a BL novel states they do. What support do you have? Oh, thats right...none.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
From a practical point of view I'd really like to see someone actually fit any of the following into a Night Scythe:

15 Immortals
6 Wraiths and 2 Destroyer Lords

You can't do it. That should tell you something right there.

haha the same way I can stick 10 SM in a rhino, melt them down.

IIRC you are able to stick 12 SM in a Chimera too, that is not happening as well.

Or just to drive the point home I have the old rhinos the really tiny guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher wrote:


Never in the FAQ does disembark = placing.

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

PG 80 explodes results, placed is mentioned.

The FAQ represents destroyed vehicles not just wrecked vehicles.

Placed ='s Disembark

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher wrote:


Never in the FAQ does disembark = placing.

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

PG 80 explodes results, placed is mentioned.

The FAQ represents destroyed vehicles not just wrecked vehicles.

Placed ='s Disembark

No that`s talking about a unit that has disembarked from a destroyed vehicle. The only units that can come disembarked are from wrecked vehicles. It might be intended to include both wrecked and exploded but as it is written it only includes those models that have come from a wrecked transport. Not those from an exploded one. Since it specifically asks for disembarked models and the only disembarked models as per the rulebook are those coming from a wrecked transport. Destroyed might mean both wrecked and exploded, but disembark only means from a wrecked transport. So RAW a unit from a exploded transport can charge, now this is obviously not RAI but it is RAW.

Destroyed includes wrecked and explodes. The question includes both within the definition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Destroyed includes wrecked and explodes. The question includes both within the definition.

Yes Destroyed vehicles includes both, but the question is talking about disembarked units from destroyed vehicles and disembarked units from the rulebook only come from wrecked vehicles. So as per RAW the FAQ is actually only talking about wrecked vehicles.

Basically a unit can only disembark from a wrecked transport, not a exploded one. So the Q is really only referring to wrecked vehicles and maybe some vehicle that does not currently exist that allows you to disembark from a exploded vehicle. That's how it reads per RAW.

Nope, the question includes both, because it considers destroyed as a whole. Stop using RAW when youre not actually reading the rules as writtne, you are changing the rules to mean something else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, the question includes both, because it considers destroyed as a whole. Stop using RAW when youre not actually reading the rules as writtne, you are changing the rules to mean something else.

No your making an assumption that they mean to includes units of the exploded transport but they never actually say that. They only ever use place models when talking about an exploded transport in the book. You are making an assumption that when they say disembarked units that they also mean models that are placed, because never in the BRB or anywhere else does it say that a unit that has been placed because of an explode result actually disembarked. Disembark in the BRB is only ever used to describe exiting a functioning transport or leaving a WRECKED transport. That is all that disembark covers.

You don't disembark from a smoked flyer guys. It's like one second you are zooming along in your pimp ride and the next you're suddenly sailing along ready to eat a dirt sandwich... Well unless you're a Necron of course because you're not in the flyer ever and the intent is crystal clear.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You don't disembark from a smoked flyer guys. It's like one second you are zooming along in your pimp ride and the next you're suddenly sailing along ready to eat a dirt sandwich... Well unless you're a Necron of course because you're not in the flyer ever and the intent is crystal clear.

Omg yes you are inside stop with the youre not embarked nonsense.

Fluff does not equal rules...

RAI says it is though. : )

 Dozer Blades wrote:
RAI says it is though. : )

Fluff you mean, fluff pretty much says Marines are invincible as well.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You don't disembark from a smoked flyer guys. It's like one second you are zooming along in your pimp ride and the next you're suddenly sailing along ready to eat a dirt sandwich... Well unless you're a Necron of course because you're not in the flyer ever and the intent is crystal clear.

Apart from the rules which state the models are embarked. Oh wait, guess you would be wrong to state that

RAI you are wrong as well, becuse some published GW material (BL) states they do take hits. Where is your "RAI" showing the opposite? Found any yet?

This is almost as pointless as the upcoming election. Here the RAW and RAI everything else that is pink. No one is going to agree about the Night Scythe and units taking or not taking the str 10 hit. The rule of the day is.....Wait til GW makes a FAQ for this rule

Well the RAW is crystal clear. The RAI, as usual, is muddy - but there is one l=published source saying they take the hits.

We;re down to arguments such as "theyre not inside!!!!!" now. Yawn

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well the RAW is crystal clear. The RAI, as usual, is muddy - but there is one l=published source saying they take the hits.

We;re down to arguments such as "theyre not inside!!!!!" now. Yawn

RAW is not crystal clear they could or they couldn't it's not properly stated either way it just depends on whether or not you believe that they enter reserves before the hits take place or not. RAI is muddy with most necron players believing they don't due to the fluff, and most non-necron players saying they do because its OP for them not to.

This is the first I'm hearing of this "source" saying they take hits. Most places play with them not taking hits, what is this source/do you have a link to where you got this information?

Sorry, but it IS clear. Following the rules it is impossible for them to be in reserves before the hits take place. 100% impossible. Either their rule does not function at all, and they are placed around the wreck, or they take the hits then go into reserve. There is no middle ground.

The fluff can easily indicate they take hits, as well - look up "feedback".

Additionally you have arbitrarily decided the split is necron / non necron with no evidence

The Necron FAQ seems to think the guys are aboard...

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

But ofc, if you still insist they're not aboard I'll oblige you. I just don't know how the passengers are going to disembark if they're not there so the vehicle just became rather pointless.

Punisher wrote:
RAW is not crystal clear they could or they couldn't it's not properly stated either way it just depends on whether or not you believe that they enter reserves before the hits take place or not. RAI is muddy with most necron players believing they don't due to the fluff, and most non-necron players saying they do because its OP for them not to.

No, really - it's not that I think it's overpowered for them not to, it's just how the rules read. Assigning a negative motivation without proof isn't very friendly.

This is the first I'm hearing of this "source" saying they take hits. Most places play with them not taking hits, what is this source/do you have a link to where you got this information?

I believe he's referring to the Black Library book I referenced a couple of times (Fall of Damnos).
I don't have a page number to cite for you, but in one of the other threads on this it was said that the marines blew up a night scythe, and there was a description of the feedback blowing up the portal on the other end.

rigeld2 wrote:

This is the first I'm hearing of this "source" saying they take hits. Most places play with them not taking hits, what is this source/do you have a link to where you got this information?

I believe he's referring to the Black Library book I referenced a couple of times (Fall of Damnos).
I don't have a page number to cite for you, but in one of the other threads on this it was said that the marines blew up a night scythe, and there was a description of the feedback blowing up the portal on the other end.

Fall of Damnos was written before the new codex, the only thing it changed from what was normal at that point was the fact they had minds. All the units used in the book where in the last codex.

Incorrect, 100%. Or did you forget the unfleshed lord, that didnt even make it into the codex? (sadly)

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, 100%. Or did you forget the unfleshed lord, that didnt even make it into the codex? (sadly)

Yes, yes I did forget him. Now to decide on how to torture myself for forgetting one of the best characters in the book.

RAW it is not 100% clear because if it was then there wouldn't be at least two multi-page threads arguing it and not to mention I have yet to play a game both casually or in tournaments where they have ruled that the Necron unit takes the S10 hits. In your mind it is 100% clear based on the assumptions that you make, but to a majority of the people I play with and have played against across the country their interpretation is the same as mine where they don't take the S10 hits.

Aycee

Yeah exactly - there are an adamant few here who insist their supposedly raw interpretation is correct while simply ignoring other pertinent facts.

Aycee71 wrote:
RAW it is not 100% clear because if it was then there wouldn't be at least two multi-page threads arguing it

This is false argument. Dakka is full of long threads about things where RAW is 100% absolutely clear.
Usually, because the other side doesn't want to believe RAW, sometimes because RAW gives them in-game disadvantage. Other times "because it doesn't make sense". And that side keeps repeating arguments that were debunked pages ago ad nauseum. And the other side keeps shooting them down.

For example, it was 100% clear that RAW Grounded FMC's didn't lose Hard to Hit and that they could be Grounded multiple times. Even GW agreed, which is why they released Errata and changed the rules. Still, there was long thread about it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Yeah exactly - there are an adamant few here who insist their supposedly raw interpretation is correct while simply ignoring other pertinent facts.

I have to admit, I found this line to be hilarious, considering the source

Anyway, it's been proven multiple times that RAW embarked Scythe passengers do take the S10 hits. I'm not sure about RAI, it's something that's impossible to say until GW releases FAQ that answers this question.

smUrfsrUs wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

This is the first I'm hearing of this "source" saying they take hits. Most places play with them not taking hits, what is this source/do you have a link to where you got this information?

I believe he's referring to the Black Library book I referenced a couple of times (Fall of Damnos).
I don't have a page number to cite for you, but in one of the other threads on this it was said that the marines blew up a night scythe, and there was a description of the feedback blowing up the portal on the other end.

Fall of Damnos was written before the new codex, the only thing it changed from what was normal at that point was the fact they had minds. All the units used in the book where in the last codex.

Sorry, you're right - it's Hammer and Anvil that mentions it.
My apologies for the mistake.

As a Necron player, I hate to admit it but it seems that we have to play it that the units inside DO take the hits until there is another FAQ which might clear up this issue.

It does balance the Flyer and give a huge drawback as your unit, if there any models left, are back in reserves.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Yeah exactly - there are an adamant few here who insist their supposedly raw interpretation is correct while simply ignoring other pertinent facts.

Lol, impressive statement given the source.

No facts have been ignored. The actual rules on this ARE clear, and you have not a single RULES argument against it. You havent had one. Aycee is the same

I've gotten a lot of necron players to agree that they do take the hits, if I agree that they then get their resurrection protocols. I think it's mainly a good idea to discuss it with your opponent before the game.

The only problem is that most of your troops are going to die.....then what......take a leadership....what happen if you failed......or you get pinned.......the point are moot. that why many of my nercons players believes that you dont take the str 10 hit at all.

Odd that. Almost like they dont want a negative.

Its the same trickiness as gets hot! on embarked models in 5th - that was a messy situation then.

You just dont roll for panic, as they arent on the board to panic. Similarly they dont get RP, as you cannot place models back in coherency - because theyre not on the board.

All in all really simple, means they still get to use their special rule for dropping into Reserves, and actually follows the rules.

Funny to see those arguing that you can't ignore one rule, while ignoring the exact rule from the codex that addresses this issue themselves.

And it happens to be the same two or three people arguing ridiculous RAW interpretations of the rules, until GW tells them they are wrong, again.

This has gone circular again, and is starting to get a bit hostile and personal.

Locking.