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

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

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

I believe this sums up the question?

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

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

I believe this sums up the question?

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

 Kevin949 wrote:

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

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

I believe this sums up the question?

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

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

Happyjew wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

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

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

I believe this sums up the question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks guys, I'm getting some great feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Punisher wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

IamCaboose wrote:

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

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

Punisher wrote:

IamCaboose wrote:

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

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

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

IamCaboose wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has anyone here bothered reading the Ge FAQ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spetulhu wrote:

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

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

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

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

The facts:

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

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

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

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

The loophole consists of several things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right.

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

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

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

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

Has anyone tried emailing GW and asking them?

i would but i dont know whatthe email address is.

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

i would but i dont know whatthe email address is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would think that,a ccording to the fluff (or maybe RAI) they woudl not take the hits and just go into reserver where they woudl have to either walk on form the edge or via a monolith.

i have run this past my gamign group and they are all fine with it....well, not fine but they agree on my interpretation.

 Praxiss wrote:
I would think that,a ccording to the fluff (or maybe RAI) they woudl not take the hits and just go into reserver where they woudl have to either walk on form the edge or via a monolith.

i have run this past my gamign group and they are all fine with it....well, not fine but they agree on my interpretation.

Strongly disagree.

You can argue either way on fluff based off the one book, where they get hit by the explosion.
When you add a timeline to it, they definitely take the hits.

I feel either way is a houserule atm though.

"But the fluff says they don't!" ignores the novel "Hammer and Anvil" where the "embarked" unit was destroyed when the Scythe was.

Fluff goes either way, RAW says they take the hits.

As said above, until FAQ its a house rule issue i fear.

I am curious, to the people who play that they take the hits. How do you deal with the ensuing morale check/pinning test?

Punisher wrote:
I am curious, to the people who play that they take the hits. How do you deal with the ensuing morale check/pinning test?

You can roll it if you want, but it's irrelevant - the unit is placed in Reserve per the Night Scythe rule.

Punisher wrote:
I am curious, to the people who play that they take the hits. How do you deal with the ensuing morale check/pinning test?

Hits are taken before the unit "disembarks" the vehicle. While embarked in a vehicle the unit is fearless.

I can't read another full thread of this...

Needless to say, I listen to 11th Company podcast for most of my 40k related information (awesome Podcast!). I used to COMPLETELY disagree with Neil's argument regarding this due to implementing an action that wasn't there.

However, I have started playing necrons now and my opinion has switched. I now COMPLETELY agree that they just get placed back into reserve.

 WingWong wrote:
However, I have started playing necrons now and my opinion has switched. I now COMPLETELY agree that they just get placed back into reserve.

That could explain a lot of it.

Fragile wrote:

 WingWong wrote:
However, I have started playing necrons now and my opinion has switched. I now COMPLETELY agree that they just get placed back into reserve.

That could explain a lot of it.

LOL too true.

I've thought that myself. However I cannot judge someone one way and judge myself differently. Being the local "rules" guy has pros and cons

Impressive, after 191 votes it is STILL 50/50!

And at 199 votes its 51/50. Wait what? How do we have over 100%?

Heresy. Time to call in an Exterminatus on the thread.

Cyclonic, Life eater Virus or something else?

 Tri wrote:

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

How is making a severely undercosted flyer follow the same rules all other flying transports follow considered "harsh"?

I'm curious as to how many of the people that voted the unit should not take the hit actually DON'T play Necrons? Really, there is nothing RAW that even remotely supports the argument that the unit doesn't take the hit. There are many ways to justify the rule applying despite the fluff, such as the explosion of the flyer causes the portal to backfire and hit everybody in the pocket dimension with the power of the blast, or without the generator to keep the door open, the Necrons inside have to jump out ASAP to avoid being trapped and destroyed, thus the survivors in reserves are the ones that made it out.

For those that feel the unit shouldn't take the hit, do you also think the unit embarked on a Nightscythe doesn't suffer the results of Crew Shaken/Stunned either?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Tri wrote:

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

How is making a severely undercosted flyer follow the same rules all other flying transports follow considered "harsh"?

I'm curious as to how many of the people that voted the unit should not take the hit actually DON'T play Necrons? Really, there is nothing RAW that even remotely supports the argument that the unit doesn't take the hit. There are many ways to justify the rule applying despite the fluff, such as the explosion of the flyer causes the portal to backfire and hit everybody in the pocket dimension with the power of the blast, or without the generator to keep the door open, the Necrons inside have to jump out ASAP to avoid being trapped and destroyed, thus the survivors in reserves are the ones that made it out.

For those that feel the unit shouldn't take the hit, do you also think the unit embarked on a Nightscythe doesn't suffer the results of Crew Shaken/Stunned either?

I don't play necron i did vote they should take the hit (as i play by Raw unless A) its over powered/ broken B) I feel its unfair to my enemy)

Now why do you think that it is an under cost flyer? It costs the same as Valkyrie but cannot hover (so needed a rule to make possible to work as a transport), has worse weapons and has lower armour. It must zoom so it will "crash and burn" and the models with be placed in reserve with a str10 hit for being embarked (even though technically they aren't embarked they're through a worm hole).

It's a dedicated transport so it can be taken more. Its guns are not really worse. Invasion Beams are far better than hover to disembark/embark or Grav Chutes. And the Valk is typically regarded as undercosted already.

So we are now at 50/49. I'm assuming the1% are those that do not play.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/12/do-necrons-in-flyers-take-hits-or-not/

At least the Australian TOs have come to a consensus on this:

“There is absolutely no mention in either the codex rules or the Necron rules FAQ that the Necrons are not currently within the vehicle whilst “embarked”. (There is also a precedent set in the FAQ for models on board to be subject to vehicle effects such as having their shooting limited on the turn they disembark due to the speed of the vehicle that turn.) All that is stated is that they move to reserve rather than disembarking when the vehicle is destroyed.

As damage suffered by a unit in the case of a destroyed vehicle is a different part of the process to disembarking from a destroyed vehicle (that is – the unit suffers the damage from the vehicle destruction rather than from the act of disembarking from the destroyed vehicle), the ruling for this event (unless FAQed to the contrary between now and then) will be that all models on board will suffer damage as normal before moving to reserves.

I am aware that this isn’t necessarily what the fluff represents, but rules > fluff I’m afraid. If GW want to it work differently, then they need to write it accordingly. It’s a slippery slope for us to start interpreting fluff as correct intent for poorly or incorrectly written rules.”

That is a house rule.

Dozer - nope, its the actual, written rules. Given you have yet to find an actual rules argument against it, please retract your post or comply with the forum rules, which require you to back up your argument

Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

Sure, they've ruled in favor of fluff before. Think they'll rule Necrons on a NS don't care about Shaken/Stunned results either?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

Sure, as in that book the Necrons got blown to bits.

Also GW normally winds up going against general consensus with alot of their FAQ rulings.

They write the rules - it is what it is.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

No, because GW quite often go agains the actual rules when addressing a FAQ - falchions, for example. Again, please support your argument that the RAW is a "houserule" or retract it. Now.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Again, please support your argument that the RAW is a "houserule" or retract it. Now.

"Now" eh? heh.

I'd like to chime in that in order to support the 'takes the hits and then goes into reserves' position, you need to chop up the 'crash and burn' and the nightscythes own rules into some pretty arbitrary segments and put them a timeline, as 'put the models in reserves' from the latter rule does undeniably conflict with 'place the survivers on the table' of the former one.

Who is to say where those lines should officially be drawn? That is just one of the points of contention. What I simply cannot abide is folk presuming they know the only interpretation that is possible, and thefore have the right to 'demand' anything from anyone. This simply isn't true, and to argue from that perspective is doing everyone who reads it a disservice.

Except the position Nos is showing us is the only position that has the support of the rules.

No one has shown valid rules support to the contrary, even though they have made claims to the contrary.

How is this:

The 'nightscythe' rules indicate you need to put the models in reserves.

the 'crash and burn' rules indicate you need to hit the unit with a bunch of strength 10 hits and then place them on the table.

These two rules conflict; so if you substitute the first one for the second one the ' str 10 hits and putting the models on the table' part never happens. The point of contention here is where do you stop following the 'crash and burn' rules and start following the 'nightscythe' ones?

There is no specific (ie: rules valid) reason to only use 'some' of the nightscythe rules and 'some' of the 'crash and burn' ones for the purposes of determining which rule takes precidence when applying the 'codex trumps basic book' rule.


This does not defintively prove that the occupants of a nigthscythe do or do not take damage; but i believe it does indicate that there is definately room for discussion and it is not as cut-and-dried as some would indicate.

Actually The 'nightscythe' rules indicate you need to put the models in reserves instead of them being able to disembark.

And you have to suffer the hits before this happens.

Therefore your premise is incorrect.

You've missed my point. I suppose that is what i get for posting their essence casually rather than literally relaying their exact contents in my prior post, so i'm going to correct that now.

Nightscythe rules
"...If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..."

'Crash and Burn' rules:
"...If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes... ...If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit... ...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."

Question 1:
are the above two single discrete rules, or a collection of more than that?

Question 1a:
If they are discrete rules, why would the first one only 'partially' supercede the latter one?

Question 1b:
If they are made up of multiple rules: who decides how it is broken down into seperate sub-rules? (where the lines are drawn within the greater rule itself)


Question 2:
What is the difference (rules-wise) between being destroyed, and being wrecked or exploding?

Question 3:
Is the trigger for the nightscythe rule: a) the vehicle being destroyed, or b) the embarked unit attempting to disembark?


It's likely i can come up with other unanswered questions as i have debated this issue quite thoroughly in the past, though i believe the above suffices to indicate my stance.

Because the Crash and Burn and Nightscythe rules only have one part that are in conflict.

Destroyed is not defined on the vehicle damage chart, but they describe Wrecked and Explodes in the vehicle damage section.

Presuming what you say is accurate: how do you define the exact part of the 'crash and burn' rules that the nightscythe rules overwrite, so to speak?

The rules are in conflict, and you appear to hold with the idea that there are several smaller rules within the 'crash and burn' ruleset as a whole. So then, who decides what parts of the crash and burn rules are themselves discrete rules, at least one of which would be superceded by the nightscythe ones?

But the two rules are not in conflict as a whole, only parts of the rule.

We should strive to break no rule, so we must apply as much of both rules as we possibly can.

I agree, except for the part where you take it as given that you have implicit permission to only replace 'part' of a given rule with 'part' of another.

The main rulebook has the following text in it:
"'Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."

It then goes on to define 'advanced' as representing both general vs specific rules and those found in a codex vs the BRB.

What it does not do here or anywhere else that i've found however, is define what constitutes a discrete rule in and of itself.

The 'crash-and-burn' ruleset could just as easily represent one rule as it does a half-dozen of them. Who is to say? It's probably easiest to simply exchange the exact sentences that do not fit using the 'advanced vs basic' rubric, but is it unequivocally RAW?

Personally i feel it's logical to replace the entirety of the 'crash and burn' ruleset after the words "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes..." with "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..." but i freely admit such is a subjective judgement call rather than anything i can point to a specific passage in a rulebook and say: "Here. This states why this is unarguably true".

I've played the Take the hits even before I was playing Necrons. While it would be a nice boost for them not to, I cannot prove without a doubt that they do not. In the tourney's we hold I get asked the majority of the rules questions. So until I find solid proof I cannot overturn my previous judgement God I'm tired, hope that makes sense.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Again, please support your argument that the RAW is a "houserule" or retract it. Now.

"Now" eh? heh.

I'd like to chime in that in order to support the 'takes the hits and then goes into reserves' position, you need to chop up the 'crash and burn' and the nightscythes own rules into some pretty arbitrary segments and put them a timeline, as 'put the models in reserves' from the latter rule does undeniably conflict with 'place the survivers on the table' of the former one.

Who is to say where those lines should officially be drawn? That is just one of the points of contention. What I simply cannot abide is folk presuming they know the only interpretation that is possible, and thefore have the right to 'demand' anything from anyone. This simply isn't true, and to argue from that perspective is doing everyone who reads it a disservice.

I agree and it's also rude. The results of the poll show there is an equal split in opinion and we know from experience that often GW does not always use RAW to answer questions. So on the basis of the latter note we know that the RAW interpretation does not always win out over RAI.

Assuming you're correct on what's intended. As proven, fluff goes both ways so I'm interested to know why you assert the intent is that they take no hits.

That's fine.

No, you made a statement that the RAW was a houserule. Thus requiruing that you have an actual argument otherwise.

You dont, therefore you have again broken the tenets of this forum.

Neo - crash and burn has a number of rules

nosferatu wrote: Neo - crash and burn has a number of rules

I'd agree, that is a likely interpretation. But who is to say how many there are, and more importantly where each individual one begins and ends definitively? In order for your interpretation to work, you'd need to have specific indication of what sub-rules of the crash and burn ruleset are replaced by the nightscythe ones and which stay the same.

I'm pretty sure the above is impossible short of GW FAQing it one way or the other.

It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

not 'things'. Rules.

You are supposed to replace any conflicting rules. The problem is as i've stated is there isn't really a good clarification of what constitutes a specific 'rule'; it could just as easily represent the entire 'crash and burn' paragraph as it does the very last sentence in that text. (or anything in between for that matter).

It's 'logical' to parse it based on the information content; typically on a 'per sentence' or 'per paragraph' basis, but it is not and cannot be 'RAW' when it is never clearly defined.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

they do enter reserve ... and are then removed as casualties as they are not placed .... zero conflict

 Neorealist wrote:
not 'things'
It's 'logical' to parse it based on the information content; typically on a 'per sentence' or 'per paragraph' basis, but it is not and cannot be 'RAW' when it is never clearly defined.

which is what I'm showing i hope

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

they do enter reserve ... and are then removed as casualties as they are not placed .... zero conflict

No, it's a conflict. The unit goes in to reserve. Find permission to remove as a casualty a model in reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

they do enter reserve ... and are then removed as casualties as they are not placed .... zero conflict

No, it's a conflict. The unit goes in to reserve. Find permission to remove as a casualty a model in reserve.

Interesting but pointless there are many things that can keep going as a model leaves the field. For example if a unit enter a transport after being hit (and set on fire) by a soul blaze weapon would it stop? No ... if that vehicle was a flyer and left the field would it stop? No. Are you also saying a Marlock needs to be on the table to regenerate wounds? No just needs to be alive at the start of the turn.

You do not need permission to do something that's written in the rules ... it happens. You need permission to ignore something written in the rules. In this case the model must take a str10, must enter reserve and, since not placed they must be removed as casualties.

They are placed. They're placed in reserve.
And yes, some things do continue to work in Reserves.
Soul Blaze isn't one of them - there's no reminder counter in play, there's no permission to wound models not in play.

What about pinning and morale checks? How do you handle that - sweep it under the carpet too?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What about pinning and morale checks? How do you handle that - sweep it under the carpet too?

You're still inside when you take the hits aren't you?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What about pinning and morale checks? How do you handle that - sweep it under the carpet too?

Flying transport explosions don't Pin.
There's nothing saying Morale checks wouldn't be caused as normal.

It's almost like we've gone over this bef-- Oh Wait! We have!

rigeld2 wrote:
They are placed. They're placed in reserve.
And yes, some things do continue to work in Reserves.
Soul Blaze isn't one of them - there's no reminder counter in play, there's no permission to wound models not in play.

You are told to do something ... that is permission. You are not doing something you are told to do. Where is you permission to ignore rules?

and entering reserves is not being placed in reserves. that is different wording. In fact no models are placed in reserve they all enter reserve or start in reserve.

You're told to resolve Soul Blaze on units with reminder counters. That unit isn't in play, so neither is its counter.

You should start a thread about that if you want to however, instead of derailing this one further.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're told to resolve Soul Blaze on units with reminder counters. That unit isn't in play, so neither is its counter.

You should start a thread about that if you want to however, instead of derailing this one further.

You have models on the board or waiting in reserve (oh and dead models but they normally don't come back, in this edition any way). I've never read about models being in play ... please post a page number for this rule

Models must be "in play" or not. If they aren't, you could not remove them from play.

My last post referring to this off topic discussion. Feel free to "win" if you want.

rigeld2 wrote:
Models must be "in play" or not. If they aren't, you could not remove them from play.

My last post referring to this off topic discussion. Feel free to "win" if you want.

So if a model cannot enter from reserves it cannot be in play. yet we must remove it from play even thought it isn't. unless reserve is part of play. In which case models in reserve are in play and can be removed from play.

Feel free to "win" if you want.

It's not about winning its about pointing that multiple parts of this don't work together.

1) All models take Str10 hit
2) Models are placed within 3" of the final blast
3) models that cannot be placed are removed

1) All models take Str10 hit
2) Models enter reserve
3) models that cannot be placed are removed

Lets see the page #. Okay?

The page number where it tells you to rpelace rules that conflict? Been there.

Please show the page number where you are allowed to ignore rules that do not conflict.

When you cannot, as you repeatedly fail to actually follow the tenets of this forum, you will have conceded. Again.

Oh, and even fluff doesnt back your argument up, before you try that "argument" again....

Merry Christmas.

And the don't take the hits finally has the lead...

Would be funny to see how people voted on the Dark Eldar Flickerfield.

Rules is it's an Invulnerable save, fluff is it's an optical illusion making the vehicle look like it's there or maybe not. Fluffwise it makes no sense you could use it against the damage you take from ramming (looking like you didn't hit that Landraider shouldn't protect you from the damage) or from failing a Dangerous Terrain test (look like you didn't hit that tree all you want, bub).

"No long discussion"

4 pages long. Welcome to dakkadakka

I'm still amazed we're still at a 50/50 split. someone should notify GW, that this is obviously not a clear topic. lol

Looks like its been officially resolved.
No damage, go into reserve.
It's in the latest update to the digital codex.

Can you do a printscreen to see for ourselves?

 marv335 wrote:
Looks like its been officially resolved.
No damage, go into reserve.
It's in the latest update to the digital codex.

Well, not really official until it hits the FAQ's, but a good indication of changes in the next round of FAQ's.
Still a screen grab would be nice if that doesn't violate any copy rights.

Not even sure why GW's doing digital codexes, they can't even keep up with FAQ's ...

How could a screen grab violate copy rights. I bought my codex and I should know any updates on it.

Here's the text.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b3eznjx35viiakk/2013-01-12%2016.20.19.jpg

/Interesting, so no damage to the necrons embarked! darn!

Now I'm confused. Why wouldn't they just FAQ that? How many people are going to have access to the digital codex?

But that being said, looks like the questions been answered.

To be fair, I got the update this morning as I was downloading the DA codex, it wasn't there last night.
I expect a FAQ will be published on Monday.
There may be other changes in the codex, it's just that's the only one I noticed.

 marv335 wrote:
To be fair, I got the update this morning as I was downloading the DA codex, it wasn't there last night.
I expect a FAQ will be published on Monday.
There may be other changes in the codex, it's just that's the only one I noticed.

Hmm I wonder if anyone noticed any other changes in the codex's?

Always good to see something resolved!

Ooh, brb!
Quickly buying an Ipad and Digital Codex's because GW doesn't bother to update the rest -_-'

Anyone else notice that aside from the digital codex saying the transported units don't take damage, that they removed the "Jump infantry count as 2 units; jetbikes count as 3" with the transport capacity? So apparently, jump infantry and jetbikes take up the exact same amount of space as basic infantry with necrons now.

For every one thing they "fix", they screw up two others

In 6th edition JI have the bulk rule, so each JI model counts as 2 infantry models for transport capacity. No need to repeat that in the codex.

Seconded.
Instead of "counts as two", they now have:
Bulky => 2 spots
Very Bulky => 3 spots
Extremely Bulky => 5 spots

I guess, just seems odd to remove it altogether when the paper versions would still have it. Unless they update those too

They will. In about 5 months when they are finally finished reviewing the non-digital version of the Dark Angels codex and release updates to fix all the glaring errors in it.

So I guess that since fluff are becoming rules now with edition changes does that mean that RAI for spore mines is that they are ap3 since fluff says the acid in them burns through ceramite which is what SM power armor is made from. I bet they let the author A.K.A. Mat Ward A.K.A Mr. I have never seen so much bias in my life, decide which way this went.

Hey look at that, no damage. nice.

It's good to see them conclusively state something that they'd previously only alluded to and confused a lot of people in so doing.

 Neorealist wrote:
Hey look at that, no damage. nice.

It's good to see them conclusively state something that they'd previously only alluded to and confused a lot of people in so doing.

shame we can't lock this while the polls still 50/50 (ok 48/51)

Tri wrote: shame we can't lock this while the polls still 50/50 (ok 48/51)

Yeah, that would be a fitting end to a convoluted issue. A Testament if you will.

Awesome about the digital dex update. The past couple times the dex's weren't updated until a week or so after the FAQs.

Thank you GW. Now, release the rest of the codexes on the iPad.

So as they arent in the night scythe if they haven't disembarked by the end of the game do they count as destroyed?

I just want them to release them on a non-apple product. I'm not carrying around my Ipad when I play. Now, my android phone is an option...

Still good thing to see this got cleared up. Necrons win!

 spears wrote:
So as they arent in the night scythe if they haven't disembarked by the end of the game do they count as destroyed?

According to the rules they are normally embarked on it, so they do not count as destroyed.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b3eznjx35viiakk/2013-01-12%2016.20.19.jpg

So they are not technically in the scythe so they take no damage, but they get the benefits of being in the scythe such as activating solar pulse.....

I think that's called having your cake and eating it too! LOL

Shock, a necron ruling that changes yet more rules......

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/01/changes-found-in-digital-codices.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Faeit212+%28Faeit+212%29

The good thing about this is that the obvious RAI interpretation was the correct one instead of the strict RAW interpretation. Let's keep it in mind next time another such situation shows up.

copper.talos wrote:
The good thing about this is that the obvious RAI interpretation was the correct one instead of the strict RAW interpretation. Let's keep it in mind next time another such situation shows up.

You say it was obvious. It's been proven that there was fluff to support either side.

Agree there Nos, its a pee take really. They can drop their units, who have average toughness not a bad save and can get back up as well as being ld 10, onto objectives turn 5 pretty much from anywhere on the board.

They dont lose those guys to damage from being in a flyer, I hardly ever use my flyers as transports as they are tin cans of death for any normal units in them.

And they are pretty darn cheap for what they are. Got a tourny this weekend, 16 necron players and 52 nightscythes, mostly using 5 man squads.

And dont get me started on the wraiths or annihilation barges.

@rigeld2 I've read the codex entry quite a few times. There isn't even a hint that the unit inside takes any damage. On the contrary it makes it perfectly clear that the unit is still on the tombworld and out of danger.

Read the FAQ's Copper, it states that they are embarked in the transport.

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.


Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes – follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating
the Night Scythe’s base as its Access Point. Note that this is
possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.

We are talking about RAI over strict RAW, so read the fluff Marky.

Well since we're going fluff over rules, does that mean I can take a single squad of SM and always win?

In that case, next time I play nids I'll take Maguan Ra, auto win for me I guess?

Erm sure, why not. What squad has "it must always win" or something close as part of its rules, along with a fluff in its codex entry that says it hasn't lost a single combat?

Mugan Ra has in a codex, think it was nids or eldar, he held off on his own against a very large nid force consuming the world.

Ah, but fluff ignores the 'normal' rules, crash and burn ring a bell?. I once killed draigo with a exploding drop pod, not very fluffy now is it?, against the rules?.

This is forum is for RAW rules, not RAI thats the next one or two sub forums down, its call proposed rules, fluff rules should stay in there.

(as for it must always win, pick a primarch but just dont play a mission in which they acutally die.)

Really? Then I guess you must be the only one to play challenges using majority WS & T for the characters...

The transport rules for the scythe along with the codex's fluff was in favor of the transported unit not taking damage. That was RAI. Strict RAW it would take damage, so they changed the rules to match RAI. That's it.

I'm pretty sure by fluff, Arhiman has all psychic powers from most deviations and can cast about 12 a turn and auto pass all psy tests. After the new book of his, he would be a BEAST!

Don't get me started on what that would mean for Eldrad,

Back to the discussion there is only one questions to look at... do they go into reserves first? or do they take damage first.

RAW they are on the transport.

Also RAI is the worst to go by since you never know... Look at the bastion, the FMC Daemon price and everything else done in the faqs.

If you want to make an opinion call (which is what RAI is) then make a RFB (Rules for balance) call.

In this situation balance would be that they get RP, no moral or pinning tests, but do take the damage. unless a non fluff quote is provided to state that they go into reserves before taking damage.

Wrong. ONLY the fluff was in favour of them not taking damage, and other canon fluff said they DO take damage. RAI was, as ever, unclear

Year another rules change

@jegsar

Does Ahriman has any rules in its codex entry that say it can cast 12 powers a turn or something close to it? I think not, so it's not the same situation as the transport rule for the scythe.

And since you are so keen on strict RAW, are you playing challenges using majority WS & T? What do your opponents say about this?

So do flyers have a crash and burn rule that units embarked take s9 hits, no saves allowed? yes, does this update ignore that rule? yes. RAI is not RAW, RAI is assumed RAW is the actual game we have spent so much money on.

Yes there are a few contenous issues, one being the drop pod rule with immobile, I disagree with some peoples views that immobile means losing a hull point, RAW isnt exactly clear and I think they are assuming things when coming to that conclusion.

Majority WS and T while in combat, if my opponent was a TFG, yea why the hell not. If he is running a wraith/scythe spam list, again why the hell not,

copper.talos wrote:
@rigeld2 I've read the codex entry quite a few times. There isn't even a hint that the unit inside takes any damage. On the contrary it makes it perfectly clear that the unit is still on the tombworld and out of danger.

So you're ignoring the BL book that was cited a few times in the thread?

Cool story bro.

I seriously can't believe this thread hasn't been locked.

Who cares if RAI it was this way or that.

The GW gods have spoken and it's settled. Carry on.

Not all the flyers have the same transport rule as the scythe. It is unique. So no, damage on passengers RAI should not apply. See the poll? It was 48/51 in favor of the unit not taking damage. Why do you think al these people voted like that even though RAW it was the clear that the transported unit should take damage? They didn't know how to read or are the kind of people that try to play the game using some common sense?

And these are the kind of people that would never use majority WS & T in a challenge regardless of the opponent or the unit he is in combat with. Unlike you, that seem to change your view of rules accordingly...


@rigeld2 I have that book. It also says that deathmarks had a target to kill that was able to be split in two targets. Can that be applied in game? Novels are written for its story not for ingame use. The fluff in the codex when it complements actual rules is what matters ingame, because it is a book written exactly for ingame use.

And anyway I would love some page reference on what you are talking about because I can't remember anything similar.

clively wrote:
I seriously can't believe this thread hasn't been locked.

Who cares if RAI it was this way or that.

The GW gods have spoken and it's settled. Carry on.

i canmt find no such GW god statment. if you mean an FAQ there hasnt been one

copper.talos wrote:
The transport rules for the scythe along with the codex's fluff was in favor of the transported unit not taking damage.

The fluff may have been in favor of the unit not taking damage, but the rules said no such thing. If they did, then there would have been no need for a FAQ.

@Ghaz
I didn't say differently. RAW they would take the hits, so GW made a ruling to match RAW to RAI.

Again, only what you thought RAI was. Clearly a lot of people thought differently.

destuctir wrote:

clively wrote:
I seriously can't believe this thread hasn't been locked.

Who cares if RAI it was this way or that.

The GW gods have spoken and it's settled. Carry on.

i canmt find no such GW god statment. if you mean an FAQ there hasnt been one

The FAQ will be here shortly. The digital codexes have already been updated to show that the passengers take no damage. Is the digital codex not official enough for you?

I can certainly see why some people don't like the call, (necrons didn't really need any more buffs) but now it's over. Necrons don't take crash and burn... /shrug

clively wrote:
I seriously can't believe this thread hasn't been locked.

Who cares if RAI it was this way or that.

The GW gods have spoken and it's settled. Carry on.

Yeah. A lot more people are butthurt about this than I expected. Its not even that big a deal.

Changes nothing. 6th with its new Crash and Burn was the culprit, but only of you enslave your mind to RAW. RAI is just as important, especially when it concerns rules from 5th edition and older.
Of course, if GW was just a bit better at their jobs, this whole fiasco could have been avoided.

copper.talos wrote:
@Ghaz
I didn't say differently. RAW they would take the hits, so GW made a ruling to match RAW to RAI.

RAItbW (RuleAsIntendedtobeWritten)

Oh well, just another reason to jump on the Cron bus. That and Wraiths are my Fav unit ever!

 Fafnir13 wrote:
Changes nothing. 6th with its new Crash and Burn was the culprit, but only of you enslave your mind to RAW. RAI is just as important, especially when it concerns rules from 5th edition and older.
Of course, if GW was just a bit better at their jobs, this whole fiasco could have been avoided.

RAI was by no means certain, as has been proven over and over and over and over and over.....

copper.talos wrote:
The good thing about this is that the obvious RAI interpretation was the correct one instead of the strict RAW interpretation. Let's keep it in mind next time another such situation shows up.

Don't keep that in mind
RAW = RAW and those should be followed.
What they did is that they changed the RAW.

@Kangodo

So in a cc that a HQ challenges the enemy HQ, will you use majority WS & T for the characters involved?

copper.talos wrote:
@Kangodo
So in a cc that a HQ challenges the enemy HQ, will you use majority WS & T for the characters involved?

Does that matter?
This forum is meant to find out what the RAW exactly is and how things SHOULD be played.

How I would play it: Their own WS/T.. That's because houserules overrule anything
Our terrain has a pyramid and it's our own rule that unique characters get teleported momentarily to the top of the pyramid to fight their legendary challenge, so that everyone in the army can see it.

Actually this forum is to help find solutions to issues that rules doesn't cover so clearly. If there were RAW answers to every question then this forum wouldn't exist.

And by the way 99.9% play challenges using the character's WS & T, and they don't consider it house rule. It's just the sensible way to play it.

 BarBoBot wrote:

destuctir wrote:

clively wrote:
I seriously can't believe this thread hasn't been locked.

Who cares if RAI it was this way or that.

The GW gods have spoken and it's settled. Carry on.

i canmt find no such GW god statment. if you mean an FAQ there hasnt been one

The FAQ will be here shortly. The digital codexes have already been updated to show that the passengers take no damage. Is the digital codex not official enough for you?

I can certainly see why some people don't like the call, (necrons didn't really need any more buffs) but now it's over. Necrons don't take crash and burn... /shrug

Nope, in these parts the digital copies are not allowed as they can be tampered with. So until it shows up in the FAQ's, its a hoax.

and by these parts I mean in my local area, not here on dakka

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nope, in these parts the digital copies are not allowed as they can be tampered with. So until it shows up in the FAQ's, its a hoax.

and by these parts I mean in my local area, not here on dakka

That's lame
"They are digital, so they can be tampered with!"
Unlike the FAQ of course, which isn't digital at aaaall.

Hell, everything can be tampered.
But I prefer to play with friends, and I trust them.
Even though they often forget rules or use rules from 5th that have been changed, I trust that it's an accident.

copper.talos wrote:
Actually this forum is to help find solutions to issues that rules doesn't cover so clearly. If there were RAW answers to every question then this forum wouldn't exist.

And by the way 99.9% play challenges using the character's WS & T, and they don't consider it house rule. It's just the sensible way to play it.

Well, I can (comfortably) say that almost every single question is answered in the rulebook.
The problem is that for some issues you have to combine 10 pages of rules before you get to a definite answer
Unless I misinterpreted the term RAW, that would apply to almost all answers.

And I agree that almost everyone plays it like that.
But the official rules say that it shouldn't be played like that.
One of my friends said this a few hours ago, and I agree with him: "I hardly care about the RAW, it's a cinematic game and should be played as thus."

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nope, in these parts the digital copies are not allowed as they can be tampered with. So until it shows up in the FAQ's, its a hoax.

and by these parts I mean in my local area, not here on dakka

You do realize the digital codexes are more than just PDFs right?
If you can figure out how to "tamper" with them you'll make a significant amount of money selling that knowledge.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nope, in these parts the digital copies are not allowed as they can be tampered with. So until it shows up in the FAQ's, its a hoax.

and by these parts I mean in my local area, not here on dakka

You do realize the digital codexes are more than just PDFs right?
If you can figure out how to "tamper" with them you'll make a significant amount of money selling that knowledge.

I don't have any idea how they're packaged. I don't have any apple products in my house.

For the tournies the TO will normally have the up to date faq's. You can even check them in the middle of a tourny and verify the information. If he also doesn't get the digital codexes then the new rules won't mean anything to him either.
With Gw's lack of advertising, I have doubts if that update is really in the improved codex, or it was tampered with. according to Itunes july 2012, is when the necron codex was published, so this new information just now gets put into the book, with no new publish date? The two new updates for jan were:
CODEX: DARK ANGELS
A CALL TO ARMS - PART 4

I don't know if it's real or not, but once Gw updates the faq's then I can see it for myself.

Everything digital can be tampered with.

Correct, the publish date isn't updated when they update the app.

And everything digital can be tampered with in theory. Hacking iBooks is nontrivial (the apps in a book like codexes, not just plain books).

Edit: in practice I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done.

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct, the publish date isn't updated when they update the app.

And everything digital can be tampered with in theory. Hacking iBooks is nontrivial (the apps in a book like codexes, not just plain books).

Edit: in practice I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done.

I agree that it's unlikely it's been tampered with. That said though it's very possible, albeit unlikely.

copper.talos wrote:
@jegsar

Does Ahriman has any rules in its codex entry that say it can cast 12 powers a turn or something close to it? I think not, so it's not the same situation as the transport rule for the scythe.

And since you are so keen on strict RAW, are you playing challenges using majority WS & T? What do your opponents say about this?

I like a balanced game, night scythes are not balanced for point cost. This is an opinion just like using fluff and i can find fluff written by games workshop/chiel

As a side note
pg. 24

Attacks made against such a unit are resolved using the Weapon Skill of the majority of the engaged enemy models.

The attacks are not made against the unit, they are made against the model.

and by fluff rules, when Lucius is killed, the model that killed him should transform into him and your model would be removed. This also means that you can never gain the victory point for killing him. I like fulff rules lets play with them

Lucius now stalks the galax)' as an arrogant slaughterer who
can never trul} be killed. whoever slay~ him and take~ even
a moment of satisfaction from the act \\i ll find themsehes
transforming, slowly and painfully, into Lucius.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct, the publish date isn't updated when they update the app.

And everything digital can be tampered with in theory. Hacking iBooks is nontrivial (the apps in a book like codexes, not just plain books).

Edit: in practice I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done.

I agree that it's unlikely it's been tampered with. That said though it's very possible, albeit unlikely.

Thank goodness we have an online community of trusted people who attend events in real life and are not simply anonymous scammers who can corroborate the digital updates and provide that information to the network of TOs who all communicate with each other to make sure that most of the well-run events in the community have the updated rules.

Pretty much anyone who tries to silo themselves in a 'digital updates are all fake and lies, I hate geedub' is just being delusional.

nkelsch wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Correct, the publish date isn't updated when they update the app.

And everything digital can be tampered with in theory. Hacking iBooks is nontrivial (the apps in a book like codexes, not just plain books).

Edit: in practice I'm pretty sure it hasn't been done.

I agree that it's unlikely it's been tampered with. That said though it's very possible, albeit unlikely.

Thank goodness we have an online community of trusted people who attend events in real life and are not simply anonymous scammers who can corroborate the digital updates and provide that information to the network of TOs who all communicate with each other to make sure that most of the well-run events in the community have the updated rules.

Pretty much anyone who tries to silo themselves in a 'digital updates are all fake and lies, I hate geedub' is just being delusional.

first, love the sarcasm

It's not delusional at all, has anyone actually seen this new digital codex or just the rules text for this one topic?

Anyone can doctor up a screen shot and put whatever they want on it.

But doesn't it seem a bit odd, that gw takes the time to update the digital codex, and not the faq? Are we all supposed to get the digital codexes from now on to make sure we have the most up to date rules? Those poor suckers getting the hard back DA codex, they should have got the digital one.

Information can be found here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just so I understand, we agree that RAW (with the digital dex change anyway) is that they don't take the hits, and are just arguing over what the intent was pre-update?

 Happyjew wrote:
Information can be found here.

I saw that, it is not from gw, its just a screen shot that may or may not have been doctored. quoting a blog has to be up there with quoting fluff

sirlynchmob wrote:

first, love the sarcasm

It's not delusional at all, has anyone actually seen this new digital codex or just the rules text for this one topic?

Anyone can doctor up a screen shot and put whatever they want on it.

But doesn't it seem a bit odd, that gw takes the time to update the digital codex, and not the faq? Are we all supposed to get the digital codexes from now on to make sure we have the most up to date rules? Those poor suckers getting the hard back DA codex, they should have got the digital one.

Wouldn't be the first time they've put rules in an iDex that differ from the paper dex. They don't exactly have a history of consistency in their rules or of notifying us of changes they make between different printings of the same dex (see the 1st and 2nd printing of the 3rd ed necron dex - the changes NEVER saw a mention in any FAQ). Someone in this thread already mentioned they saw the iDex first hand, so I'm going to go with it being legit for the moment.

Face it, they finally got around to fixing a rule that they broke with the release of 6th edition. It doesn't happen all that often with them, but they do fix things like that on occasion. Now, from a game balance standpoint, did the Night Scythe need the fix? No, not really. I think most unbiased people will agree that it's already the best dedicated transport in the game and is underpriced for what it does...however, GW has essentially already stated that game balance is not their primary concern. For better or worse, that's just the way it is.

They often finish FAQs weeks before updating them. Remember the updated date compared to the actual upload of the Chaos FAQ?

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's not delusional at all, has anyone actually seen this new digital codex or just the rules text for this one topic?

I've got the iOS codex, so yes, I've seen it. It also clarifies that Deathmarks may only single out one unit per game to put an end to the VoD multi-target exploit.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Anyone can doctor up a screen shot and put whatever they want on it.

I've posted up screenshots of the new rules text, Are you accusing me of tampering with the photo?
Seriously?

The rule has been amended, iOS codexes exist, learn to deal and move on.

 marv335 wrote:

I've got the iOS codex, so yes, I've seen it. It also clarifies that Deathmarks may only single out one unit per game to put an end to the VoD multi-target exploit.

Another sensible ruling...

From the latest FAQ:

Q: If a unit is embarked on a Night Scythe that is Wrecked or Explodes,
do they suffer Strength 10 hits with no armour saves as per the Crash
and Burn rules before they are placed in reserve? (p81)
A: No.

 marv335 wrote:


I've posted up screenshots of the new rules text, Are you accusing me of tampering with the photo?
Seriously?

The rule has been amended, iOS codexes exist, learn to deal and move on.

Yes. You doctored the photo, and along with dozens of wargaming blogs and other real people have a grand conspiracy to fake the digital update, and I believe this because I have an axe to grind with GW over the cost of their iBooks or the delivery method so I with be unreasonable and extend this thread 2 more pages.

GW should focus on updating free PDFs before digital printings which generate them money. Products people pay for should be ignored because I don't use them but they should spend more time and resources updating the free PDF faster. Besides... IBooks are easy to hack... Now PDFs printed on paper... Those are impossible to modify and cheat people with.

The new FAQ is out now so it's official.

 Maelstrom808 wrote:
Face it, they finally got around to fixing a rule that they broke with the release of 6th edition.

And the poor Eldar are still waiting to have their poor Banshee masks start working vs charging into terrain again, something 4th (?) edition broke. :-(

5th edition, in 4th defenders got the bonus to I10, in 5th they changed it to attackers getting a penalty.

GW is fail again

 jegsar wrote:
GW is fail again

Because the rules were updated to be exceedingly clear on this or simply because you don't like the game?

I think this topic can be safely locked as the FAQ clearly answers the question.