Hi Guys

im new to the site and also new to 40k.

i have a question, when my night scythe enters the game can my troops disembark that turn? and if so do i need to declare that the night scythe is in hover mode?

sorry if this is the wrong place to post.

thanks for your help in advance

Gav

Welcome comrade, i have no idea bought the answer, but this belongs in you make da call. I will flag so a mod can move this to you make da call.

It depends if dudes can disembark after arriving in reserves, i think they can, and it would need to be in hover mode. There are only three non fw fliers i can think of that can drop troops out without hovering, they have special rules.

ok thank you noted.

regards

Gav

Welcome on DakkaDakka!

The Night Scythe does not have a Hover mode. It can unload its troops via the Invasion Beams special rule found in the Necron FAQ:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Necrons_v1.0_May14.pdf

Basically: you can disembark if you did not move further than 36''. If you move up to 24'' before, your troops can normally shoot, else, they can only shoot snapshots.

You cannot re-embark in the NS, however. Once on the battlefield, your troops can never get back in the flyer.

thanks for the reply, where dose it say that the NS dose not have a hover mode?

Gav

 Sigvatr wrote:
Welcome on DakkaDakka!

The Night Scythe does not have a Hover mode. It can unload its troops via the Invasion Beams special rule found in the Necron FAQ:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Necrons_v1.0_May14.pdf

Basically: you can disembark if you did not move further than 36''. If you move up to 24'' before, your troops can normally shoot, else, they can only shoot snapshots.

You cannot re-embark in the NS, however. Once on the battlefield, your troops can never get back in the flyer.

Actually there is some debate to whether or not you can embark on a Night Scythe during a battle.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/603043.page

Gavwil wrote:
thanks for the reply, where dose it say that the NS dose not have a hover mode?

Gav

If it does not have the unit type "hover" it does not have a hover mode. The NS does not have the unit type "hover" only "Vehicle (Flyer, Transport)" as shown in the Necron FAQ's (although further down I see it states to change it's entry to "Vehicle (Flyer)").

awesome guys thanks for clearing that up


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also be prepared from loads more questions...

im still trying to get me head around this game

 Ghaz wrote:

Actually there is some debate to whether or not you can embark on a Night Scythe during a battle.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/603043.page

No, there isn't. There are zero rules supporting the re-embarking.

Yes there is. The fact that there was a debate proves that there was a debate about whether or not you can embark on a Night Scythe during a battle. Saying there was not a debate is to deny the existence of the linked thread.

Which that thread proves very well, both the existence of said debate and that the paragraph giving permission was errata'd out of the codex.....

 Ghaz wrote:
Yes there is. The fact that there was a debate proves that there was a debate about whether or not you can embark on a Night Scythe during a battle. Saying there was not a debate is to deny the existence of the linked thread.

There was a debate. There is a clear and definite answer to whether you can re-embark or not: you can't.

And where is the clear consensus where everyone agreed with you in the linked thread? A simple quote will do.

 Ghaz wrote:
And where is the clear consensus where everyone agreed with you in the linked thread? A simple quote will do.

Opposing side failed to present an argument for the allowance. The "clear consensus" can be found in the BRB, chapter about flying transports.

/e: BRB, p. 84.

Again, that doesn't mean that there was a consensus.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again, that doesn't mean that there was a consensus.

A definite, 100% fool-proof and crystal clear solution is enough of a consensus to me.

http://www.onelook.com/?w=consensus&ls=a

That thread does not meet the definition of a consensus. The OP can decide for himself with what is posted if he can embark back on the Night Scythe or not.

I could also decide for myself to fire all my bolters at a range of 72''.

There is a 100% clear answer: you cannot re-embark. If you do, it's either a house rule that should be cleared up before the game or blatantly cheating your opponent.

If we needed a consensus on how a Rule functions before we could use it, then the game would be unplayable!

Consensus, to me, involves common sense. If there is a clear answer to a problem, and someone disagrees just because he wants to disagree, then I don't give anything about this person's opinion, it's a consensus. Hands down.

The opposing argument runs like this . . .

1) There were no rule changes affecting the NS between the penultimate Necron FAQ (the 6th edition version 1.4) and the current 7th edition Necron FAQ

2) The only difference between the 6th edition Necron 1.4 FAQ was the dropping of a Q and A item



3) Q and A items do not have rule-forming weight. The only clarify how rules are to be implemented. They only reveal intent as to how GW intends for us to implement rules already given.

4) 47 Q and A items were dropped from the transition to the 7th edition FAQ. Most of those were items that got cleared up in the FAQ elsewhere. However, there appear to have been several cuts that were mistakes.

5) Since no rules have changed for the NS, the Q and A item (which carries no rule forming weight of its own) if it were included would be answered the same.


The other notable problems that crop up with the clearcutting of 47 items from the Q and A list are differences to the abyssal staff and the veil of darkness, effectively rolling their behavior back to 5th edition days.

Basically a TO would have to be comfortable with a commonsense judgement that GW did not intend roll back to long gone past ways of playing things or to change the way people play NS. The NS lost its clarifications (along with the other items in jeapoardy) due to an editorial mistake. The TO would effectively patch for GW's obvious mistakes here and provide a gaming environment where players don't have to suffer changes from obvious GW slop

A strict RAW TO will disallow units from re-embarking onto the NS and force the rolling back of the other items as well to 5th edition days and force players to change due to GW slop.

Sigvatr may think its a slam dunk case. But let's wait and see how TOs handle the situation. I see 2 viable approaches where he sees one.

If you want to bring up a counter-argument, point out where, in the rules, it says that you can re-embark.

Referring to a non-existing FAQ shows that you do not understand how the rules work.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you want to bring up a counter-argument, point out where, in the rules, it says that you can re-embark.

Referring to a non-existing FAQ shows that you do not understand how the rules work.

Let's wait and see how TOs handle the situation. There are TOs who go pure RAW like you and force players to suffer obvious GW slop and there are TOs who are bold enough to patch the obvious slop.

A strict RAW is only how some TOs work.

Restricting me to a pure RAW counter-argument shows that you do not understand how some people choose to collectively come together and actually play the game.

No TO applies strict RAW as the game would be unplayable. All of us apply a mix of RAW and RAI in order to get a playable set of rules. Things that might not be clear is usually clarified before a tournament in a .pdf that is mandatory to read for all participants.

In this very case, RAW is 100% clear. RAI is debatable as GW purposefully removed the permission to re-embark in the FAQ. Without a permission, however, the only way to get around the rules is house-ruling - which is fine.

You, however, aren't looking for a solution, you are wish-listing - which is something that should not be part of any rules discussion.

 Sigvatr wrote:
No TO applies strict RAW as the game would be unplayable. All of us apply a mix of RAW and RAI in order to get a playable set of rules. Things that might not be clear is usually clarified before a tournament in a .pdf that is mandatory to read for all participants.

In this very case, RAW is 100% clear. RAI is debatable as GW purposefully removed the permission to re-embark in the FAQ. Without a permission, however, the only way to get around the rules is house-ruling - which is fine.

You, however, aren't looking for a solution, you are wish-listing - which is something that should not be part of any rules discussion.

Nope, I am not wish-listing. I am saying there are two viable approaches for a TO to take. For many TOs this will be obvious GW slop that should be patched.

And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In fact, you have refused to even read the penultimate FAQ so you have no sense of what actually changed between the necron version 1.4 FAQ and the current 7th edition FAQ.

Other TOs will not be so oddly intransigent with regards to the penultimate FAQ since it provides a pertinent historic view into RAI.

col_impact wrote:
the necron version 1.4 FAQ

Those are not rules relevant to the game any more than rules found in 2nd edition codexes are.

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

You are violating this.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

col_impact wrote:
the necron version 1.4 FAQ

Those are not rules relevant to the game any more than rules found in 2nd edition codexes are.

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

You are violating this.

Actually I am not. The penultimate FAQ is only being used to show where slop happened and not as a basis for any rule. Whether or not a TO wants to act on recognition of that slop and patch up the slop is up to them.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually. All the talking about "slops" is your wish-listing and has nothing to do with how we TOs decide whether something is allowed or not.

@DarknessEternal: He had his lesson learnt in the 7th Necron thread The rules are perfectly clear on this matter, as in you not being allowed to re-embark on NS.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually.

Q and A entries don't make rules. They clarify how rules are to be interpreted elsewhere. The dropping of a Q and A entry is the only change.

Besides, how can you make any substantive statement? You have refused to even read the penultimate FAQ.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually.

Q and A entries don't make rules. They clarify how rules are to be interpreted elsewhere.

Wrong. Example: NS case. Permission was introduced in the Q&A section. Properly read up on a matter before discussing it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually.

Q and A entries don't make rules. They clarify how rules are to be interpreted elsewhere.

Wrong. Example: NS case. Permission was introduced in the Q&A section. Properly read up on a matter before discussing it.

Permission was clarified in the Q and A section, not introduced. Read the penultimate FAQ. Properly read up on a matter before discussing it.

Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

What exactly does the 6th edition FAQ have to do with 7th edition?

FAQs occasionally do change rules. For example, during 5th edition, the following was answered two different ways.:

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle?

GW has both answered No, and Yes.

In cases where RAW are iffy, such as what counts as a Daemon for Grey Knights, referring to an older FAQ, sets precedent, as nothing has changed.

However, when a rule specifically forbids something, whether or not it was allowed in a different edition, has no bearing. Otherwise, Tyranid players just might try to get Biomancy back.

So, since besides merely rooting for attention, you start baiting again, just summing it up for anyone actually interested in the matter at hand:

Q: Can you re-embark on a Night Scythe?

A: No. The Night Scythe is a zooming flyer without Hover mode. As per p. 84 BRB, units are not allowed to embark on a zooming flyer.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

What exactly does the 6th edition FAQ have to do with 7th edition?

FAQs occasionally do change rules. For example, during 5th edition, the following was answered two different ways.:

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle?

GW has both answered No, and Yes.

In cases where RAW are iffy, such as what counts as a Daemon for Grey Knights, referring to an older FAQ, sets precedent, as nothing has changed.

However, when a rule specifically forbids something, whether or not it was allowed in a different edition, has no bearing. Otherwise, Tyranid players just might try to get Biomancy back.

If you bother to read the penultimate FAQ you will see that permission was clarified and not introduced in the Q and A section.

col_impact wrote:
If you bother to read the penultimate FAQ you will see that permission was clarified and not introduced in the Q and A section.

I have read the FAQ. It changed the rules. Normally you cannot embark into a Zooming Flyer. The FAQ changed it for Night Scythes. Therefore, the FAQ changed the rule, not clarify it.

TBH why would you want to embark back on to the NS...from what ive seen people only use them to drop off deathmarks + cryptek so he can use his template...

like i said im new so im not aware of any other tactic

Gav

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you bother to read the penultimate FAQ you will see that permission was clarified and not introduced in the Q and A section.

I have read the FAQ. It changed the rules. Normally you cannot embark into a Zooming Flyer. The FAQ changed it for Night Scythes. Therefore, the FAQ changed the rule, not clarify it.

The Q and A item only clarified. Read the Q and A item.

GW claims that Q and A only clarify, however, they also use it to change rules.

Gavwil wrote:
TBH why would you want to embark back on to the NS...from what ive seen people only use them to drop off deathmarks + cryptek so he can use his template...

like i said im new so im not aware of any other tactic

Gav

For the record, I don't care about what happens to the NS. This is just a watershed case in point of GW slop being introduced and whether or not TOs should feel empowered to clean up obvious slop.

The other items involved here are changes to the Veil of Darkness and the Abyssal Staff which are up for possible rolling back to 5th edition implementation also because of slop.

The painful reality is GW is sloppy and RAW doesn't work really well in a sloppy situation. I wish it did. But sloppy is the reality.

RAW strict TOs will force players to suffer through the slop.

"Common Sense" TOs will try to patch the slop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
GW claims that Q and A only clarify, however, they also use it to change rules.

So it seems that you are handing me the RAI argument here.

Or it's just possible that the "obvious slop" is a thematic choice and that Necrons aren't supposed to be able to re-embark on their Night Scythes, since they can phase out anyway so there's no need to pick them up after the battle.

Why does nobody ever consider that the transport capacity of a night scythe is supposed to be used like a drop pod?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Or it's just possible that the "obvious slop" is a thematic choice and that Necrons aren't supposed to be able to re-embark on their Night Scythes, since they can phase out anyway so there's no need to pick them up after the battle.

Why does nobody ever consider that the transport capacity of a night scythe is supposed to be used like a drop pod?

A lot of people do. I mean, they are called "INVASION beams" after all. It's just one person trying to be special

The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

A RAW strict TO approach is going to buff the staff even though its obviously not intended.

A Common Sense TO approach is going to push forward the RAI that can be gleaned from the penultimate FAQ and not let slop change things that shouldn't be changed.

And, nowhere am I saying that a strict RAW TO approach is necessarily a wrong choice.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Guys, the removal of previous errata items in the 6th edition FAQs is not a black and white case no matter how much you want to argue in circles over and over again.

The fact remains, those items *were* changed via errata, and DO still exist in all GW Digital publications. So for example, the Night Scythe embarkation rules ARE in all digital Necron codexes, and for all I know they might be in the newest print version of the codex as well.

Even if they aren't in the most current print version of the codex, GW still tends to bill the digital versions of the codexes as being the 'most up to date'.

So really that's the issue here. GW removed the 6th edition errata from the 7th edition FAQs, but those errata still remain (at least) in the digital codex. Either they did it because they felt the errata had already been in place long enough for people to know about it (a very bad reasoning to remove errata, BTW), or because they genuinely wanted to get rid of it, in which case the fact that they haven't removed that errata from the digital editions yet makes that concept equally problematic.

Whichever is the case, until we see a digital edition updated with the 6th edition errata removed, we cannot know for certain what the heck GW is doing…so trying to have a 'RAW' argument about this stuff right now is pointless, as there are two versions of the RAW. The old print codex you bought combined with the new 7th edition FAQs and the Digital edition of the codex, which has the 6th edition errata in it (but hasn't been updated in most cases to incorporate the 7th edition FAQs).

col_impact wrote:
The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Just to point this out: you neither are a TO, nor a competitive player and you do not know how the rules are organizd and work. Not sure how you would therefore be able to say what is good / viable or not. In the contrary, you're the last person anyone should talk to.

Abyssal Staff is worked out by the rules already as it specifies to use the target's LD instead of T when wounding. Not to mention that this also is RAI.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Or it's just possible that the "obvious slop" is a thematic choice and that Necrons aren't supposed to be able to re-embark on their Night Scythes, since they can phase out anyway so there's no need to pick them up after the battle.

Why does nobody ever consider that the transport capacity of a night scythe is supposed to be used like a drop pod?

A lot of people do. I mean, they are called "INVASION beams" after all. It's just one person trying to be special

Please note that per Necron codex NS are specifically empowered as being able to only carry Jump Troops and Jet bikes. Please explain how Jet Bikes ever get on a NS. Now, I am not submitting that as proof of anything beyond RAI food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Just to point this out: you neither are a TO, nor a competitive player and you do not know how the rules are organizd and work. Not sure how you would therefore be able to say what is good / viable or not. In the contrary, you're the last person anyone should talk to.

Abyssal Staff is worked out by the rules already as it specifies to use the target's LD instead of T when wounding. Not to mention that this also is RAI.

Read the Instant Death rules and apply them.

 yakface wrote:



Whichever is the case, until we see a digital edition updated with the 6th edition errata removed, we cannot know for certain what the heck GW is doing…so trying to have a 'RAW' argument about this stuff right now is pointless, as there are two versions of the RAW. The old print codex you bought combined with the new 7th edition FAQs and the Digital edition of the codex, which has the 6th edition errata in it (but hasn't been updated in most cases to incorporate the 7th edition FAQs).

That actually is interesting. Does the FAQ in the digital versions have a time stamp on it?

/e: Actually, the old FAQs are invalidated anyway as they are 6th and not 7th, so I'd say 7th takes precedence.#

/e2: GW - quality rules since...uhm...

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Just to point this out: you neither are a TO, nor a competitive player and you do not know how the rules are organizd and work. Not sure how you would therefore be able to say what is good / viable or not. In the contrary, you're the last person anyone should talk to.

Abyssal Staff is worked out by the rules already as it specifies to use the target's LD instead of T when wounding. Not to mention that this also is RAI.

Please keep the personal attacks coming here. It helps others see how unprofessional you are.

It's not a FAQ they change the wording in the digital editions from time to time to include the changes in the FAQs

Gravmyr wrote:
It's not a FAQ they change the wording in the digital editions from time to time to include the changes in the FAQs

I am kinda confusd about what "It" means here

Let me reword then. There is no FAQ in the Digital Edition they rework the wording to include the changes in the FAQs from time to time. The last change they did includes the beaming up as well as beaming down.

Thanks!

Is there a time stamp for the change?

No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Gravmyr wrote:
Let me reword then. There is no FAQ in the Digital Edition they rework the wording to include the changes in the FAQs from time to time. The last change they did includes the beaming up as well as beaming down.

Can you post the beaming up, beaming down wording?

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

Sorry for the confusion. I had forgotten that although GW added the 'invasion beams' rule into the digital codex, they didn't ever add the second correction (about being able to embark back onto the vehicle as well…I think that was a FAQ addition rather than a errata, IIRC).

So in this particular case, the digital edition doesn't actually still say that you can re-embark.

But my overall point still remains, which is: the actual errata items that GW dropped from the 6th edition FAQs to the 7th edition FAQs are still in the digital books. So everyone wanting to assume that their removal from the 7th edition FAQs means that GW has purposefully reversed their position on all those points needs to take a step back and realize that it is not so crystal clear.

GW has completely and utterly dropped the ball for the 6th to 7th transition when it comes to their FAQs and their digital publications, as they no longer match. The only digital publications they've updated since 7th dropped are ones that didn't have any big errata in them pre-7th edition, so we can't tell which direction GW is actually going with this.

At best, we are just in a holding pattern right now waiting to see what GW is going to do for these types of issues, and any tournament is just going to have to make the call one way or the other about which way to go. Whatever they decide, some people will be showing up to the event with codexes that are incorrect (which is never good).

 Sigvatr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

In effect there are two base codexes here. So if I bring the electronic codex to a tourney I get to re-embark units onto the NS.

Waiting for confirmation that there is indeed a "beaming up" . . .

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

In effect there are two base codexes here. So if I bring the electronic codex to a tourney I get to re-embark units onto the NS.

Waiting for confirmation that there is indeed a "beaming up" . . .

*sigh*

To express it in a positive way: you lack experience.

Tournaments always use the latest set of rules as a base for any decision. Including FAQ.

Thanks for the update yakface. Holy balls, it's a mess.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

In effect there are two base codexes here. So if I bring the electronic codex to a tourney I get to re-embark units onto the NS.

Waiting for confirmation that there is indeed a "beaming up" . . .

*sigh*

To express it in a positive way: you lack experience.

Tournaments always use the latest set of rules as a base for any decision. Including FAQ.

Thanks for the update yakface. Holy balls, it's a mess.

Cool keep the personal attacks coming!

My point was you get different results in this instance if you go eCodex + FAQ versus paper Codex + FAQ. Not that you don't apply the FAQ. Double Sigh.

If I got that right, digital FAQ are 6th, not 7th.

Master question: which is the latest one?

/e: The lack of experience referred to you neither being TO nor competitive player and thus don't know how it works.

Yak, you recall correctly. The disembark is covered by the Invasion Beam special rule (which is in the FAQ). The embarkation was covered by a question, which was dropped in the new FAQ.

As it is Gravmyr said it was added to the codex, so I'm curious as to how it was added (since the Invasion Beams special rule only covers disembarkation in the FAQ).

 Sigvatr wrote:
If I got that right, digital FAQ are 6th, not 7th.

Master question: which is the latest one?

The one with the 7th edition FAQ applied obviously.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If I got that right, digital FAQ are 6th, not 7th.

Master question: which is the latest one?

The 'latest one' would be the digital codex combined with the 7th edition FAQ.

The point being, something like the Dark Angels codex, which had its Power Field changed via errata (which is now gone in the 7th edition FAQ) still exists in the newer digital codex.

So the most recent Dark Angels codex would be the digital (with the errata that was in the 6th edition FAQ) and the new 7th edition FAQ added in.

The PROBLEM here is that the digital editions were supposed to be continually updated to incorporate the latest FAQs & errata, which they haven't for the most part been since the 7th edition FAQs dropped.

So there absolutely is no 'right' answer at this moment in 40K. If you are a Dark Angel player using a Power Field on an embarked vehicle, what is the 'right' way to play? It basically depends on which codex you have (paper or digital).

As you can see, having rules arguments at this moment about stuff that was 'removed' from the 6th edition FAQs is tricky, tricky ground right now and everyone should just acknowledge it as such and just wait to see what GW does next in regards to this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yak, you recall correctly. The disembark is covered by the Invasion Beam special rule (which is in the FAQ). The embarkation was covered by a question, which was dropped in the new FAQ.

As it is Gravmyr said it was added to the codex, so I'm curious as to how it was added (since the Invasion Beams special rule only covers disembarkation in the FAQ).

It was added exactly as the text is written in the current 7th edition FAQ. So in this particular issue, it is not a conflict…there is nothing in any version of the codex or current FAQ giving a way for models to re-embark.

However,

A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

B) As I've pointed out, the idea of GW dropping items from the 6th to 7th edition FAQs as being a deliberate 'change' they wanted to make in general is a problematic position for the reasons I've pointed out above. There *are* quite a few instances of the digital codex not matching the paper + FAQ codex now and until we see how GW proceeds on these (fixing the FAQs to bring back the old rulings or removing those things from the digital editions) nobody knows what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

Both thumbs pressed for this not taking as long as them updating their FW books to 7th

 yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

You and I are in agreement on this.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

I've quoted from the Cron-Tactic thread, because this stuff should really belong in YMDC:

col_impact wrote:
You guys are weird. I posted that because Jy2 requested and for people's reference. It's the version that was official before 7th edition. It's not going to destroy your soul if you look at it. Sheesh. Grow up.

Besides, you can't really tell what has changed from the penultimate FAQ to the current one unless you actually look at that one.

Does it really matter what has changed?
At the moment we should look at the Codex, the BRB and the FAQ to see what is possible.

Do I think that units can embark on a Zooming Night Scythe? Yes.
Do I want to proof that with an out of date FAQ? No.

The BRB tells us that we cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer unless stated otherwise.
The Night Scythe tells me that units can embark on a Night Scythe if they are within 2" of the base.
My conclusion: I can embark on a Night Scythe since this Codex-rule overrules the BRB.

So I think you are right, just for the wrong reasons

col_impact wrote:
Interesting, Night Scythes now no longer have permission RAW to carry infantry. That Q and A item was lost. The codex entry specifies only jump infantry and jetbikes.

Disagree.
The Codex allows them to carry Jump Infantry and Jetbikes.
The BRB allows them to carry Infantry because they are a Transport.
That means the BRB gives me permission to transport Infantry and I see no restriction in the Codex.

Kangodo wrote:

The Night Scythe tells me that units can embark on a Night Scythe if they are within 2" of the base.
My conclusion: I can embark on a Night Scythe since this Codex-rule overrules the BRB.

The entire paragraph about 2'' has been removed in the FAQ and replaced with "Access points: 1".

Kangodo wrote:
The BRB tells us that we cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer unless stated otherwise.
The Night Scythe tells me that units can embark on a Night Scythe if they are within 2" of the base.
My conclusion: I can embark on a Night Scythe since this Codex-rule overrules the BRB.

So I think you are right, just for the wrong reasons

There is just one small problem with this argument.

The FAQ changes the entire paragraph regarding Access points (including the 2" from the base to embark), to "1 (the base of the model)".

As that paragraph no longer exists, it cannot be used as an argument of codex trumps rulebook to allow embarkation.

Aah, that is true. I did miss that one line!
They hid it, really unfair.
Then it's clear: No embarking upon a Zooming Night Scythe.

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you bother to look at the penultimate FAQ you will notice that a Q and A item was dropped with regards to the NS. Q and A items do not have rule forming weight. Thus dropping them isn't supposed to change how the rules work.

Yakface as well sees the RAI argument here.

yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop

Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop

Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

Is it slop? I don't know enough about the context to evaluate slop or not there. If common sense leads a TO to see it as slop then a TO can patch the slop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW does a bad job maintaining its rule set. I am comfortable with a TO playing an active role and not being enslaved to RAW.

Is anyone here making the counter claim that GW does a solid job maintaining its rule set?

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you bother to look at the penultimate FAQ you will notice that a Q and A item was dropped with regards to the NS. Q and A items do not have rule forming weight. Thus dropping them isn't supposed to change how the rules work.

Yakface as well sees the RAI argument here.

yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

 Happyjew wrote:
Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

You're talking about a new edition of the codex, correct?

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

Sorry, but this is irrelevant. By that train of thinking, heldrakes still have a 360 turret mounted baleflamer.

Different FAQ editions, different clarifications.

It's not a case of an unclear rule needing to be FAQ'd, and the FAQ missing, the rule is dealt with when the rule set prohibits embarking on a zooming flyer, which the Night Scythe must remain.

In agreeance with Sigvatr here, and I'm a Necron player, so it'd be more beneficial to disagree, however it seems rather clear to me.

Until GW update their FAQ to say you may embark the NS, you cannot.

To reiterate, I am not saying that you can allow old FAQ to make rules.

What I am saying is that you can look at the penultimate FAQ and compare to the current FAQ to track the slop that GW introduced and then clean up the slop.

Are any of you actually making the claim that GW didn't do a sloppy job here?

I am just saying a TO can research the problem and patch it.

2 approaches to slop happens . . .

1) live with the slop

2) clean up the slop


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you bother to look at the penultimate FAQ you will notice that a Q and A item was dropped with regards to the NS. Q and A items do not have rule forming weight. Thus dropping them isn't supposed to change how the rules work.

Yakface as well sees the RAI argument here.

yakface wrote:


A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

The Veil of Darkness suffers the same fate here and similarly I think should be cleaned up by a TO as slop.

Keep in mind I don't disagree with Sigvatr approach. It's legitimate. I just think there is an additional viable option here, namely a TO can patch the slop.

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:


Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

The Veil of Darkness suffers the same fate here and similarly I think should be cleaned up by a TO as slop.

Keep in mind I don't disagree with Sigvatr approach. It's legitimate. I just think there is an additional viable option here, namely a TO can patch the slop.

I guess the issue there is what is defined as 'slop' by yourself may be seen as intentional by someone else. For example why did they leave it out of their FAQs this time around? Surely it was deliberate, in fact it would have been easier for them to simply upload an identical FAQ to the previous one. The fact they removed it seems to be purposefully done.

Unfortunately, as it stands, you cannot use a previous FAQ as a supplement to the given rules. Currently, there is no active FAQ available that clarifies the issue. Poor move on GW, perhaps, but seeminly intentional.

If a TO hasn't seen the last edition of the FAQs, how am I as a player supposed to appeal for the TO to 'patch' this?
(Keeping in mind I'm also asking because I plan to run a Veiltek in a cron list at a tourney next month and the TO isn't aware of the alst FAQ therefore will not let the rule work in the way it was previously FAQ'd to work)

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 03:10:14

Post by: col_impact

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:

col_impact wrote:

JBrehaut wrote:


Fair enough, I do see your point. If it was listed as a 'FAQ' and not an 'errata' or ammendment, maybe it was always the intention. However due to it's removal (which I agree was sloppy, and frustrating for me ebcause they also removed the Veil of Darkness ruling), I'm not sure I could support it's use in game.

One thing we can all agree on, is a wish that GW would update the FAQ to say yes or no either way.

The Veil of Darkness suffers the same fate here and similarly I think should be cleaned up by a TO as slop.

Keep in mind I don't disagree with Sigvatr approach. It's legitimate. I just think there is an additional viable option here, namely a TO can patch the slop.

I guess the issue there is what is defined as 'slop' by yourself may be seen as intentional by someone else. For example why did they leave it out of their FAQs this time around? Surely it was deliberate, in fact it would have been easier for them to simply upload an identical FAQ to the previous one. The fact they removed it seems to be purposefully done.

Unfortunately, as it stands, you cannot use a previous FAQ as a supplement to the given rules. Currently, there is no active FAQ available that clarifies the issue. Poor move on GW, perhaps, but seeminly intentional.

If a TO hasn't seen the last edition of the FAQs, how am I as a player supposed to appeal for the TO to 'patch' this?
(Keeping in mind I'm also asking because I plan to run a Veiltek in a cron list at a tourney next month and the TO isn't aware of the alst FAQ therefore will not let the rule work in the way it was previously FAQ'd to work)

Basically you are stuck with what the TO decides and you soldier on and that is 100% fine. However, if you are lucky enough to have access to a TO organization (BAO/NOVA) who are active about handling issues of slop then you have much more recourse. And once they settle on a course of action that FAQ then can become a standard that you can at least point your particular TO toward.

We know this -- for this game to really become a great tournament game some entity needs to step forward and take on the task of actively managing the rule set for tourney play, since GW isn't. Passively taking a hands off the slop, strict RAW approach is more punishing the players than anything else.

Do what you can to support those TOs who take an active role in managing the ruleset.

Reply by: luke1705 - click to view full reply 

70127

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 06:34:51

Post by: luke1705

 Happyjew wrote:

Nid FAQ used to say I could roll on Biomancy. Current FAQ leaves that out. Does that mean it is slop, and I can roll on Biomancy?

That is a different scenario where the codex explicitly denies this permission. The prior FAQ was given due to unclear wording in the previous codex because it was written before 6th edition was introduced. I play Nids and I DEFINITELY wanted to be able to still use biomamcy, but there is no basis for it upon reading the codex

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 06:45:33

Post by: milkboy

Well it's a win win situation actually. So if the TO strictly follows RAW, although you lose the ability to re-embark, you gain a 3+ invuln on the CCB with PS. And the ability to join units with the CCB. And the ability to instant death any T4 warlord with the. Abyssal staff. Ignoring the old FAQ brings with it many more benefits.

So disembark the Deathmarks and try your best to score a Slay the Warlord!

Reply by: luke1705 - click to view full reply 

70127

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 06:58:24

Post by: luke1705

I actually think the best current interpretation would be to deny CCB invulnerable and joining units, as well as wraith extra attacks for having a particle caster, but allow re-embarking onto the night scythe. This is allegedly how the BAO will operate (pending an update to their FAQ - I emailed Reece and he was good enough to clear that up) and I think it makes a lot of sense

In the long run I wouldn't be surprised to see CCB be able to join units, but rules clarifications would be necessary on a couple levels.

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 07:02:17

Post by: milkboy

My post was half in jest. I agree with col_impact that more needs to be considered besides exactly RAW.

On another point which was raised, I am no TO nor competitive player but that doesn't make me any worse with rule interpretation, does it? If it does matter, I'd better go organize a 4 man tournament with my mates. That'll make me a TO and an authority on rules.

Reply by: Furyou Miko - click to view full reply 

63973

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 07:17:04

Post by: Furyou Miko

What did the FAQ 'fix' with the Veil that is no longer fixed?

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 08:03:51

Post by: col_impact

 Furyou Miko wrote:
What did the FAQ 'fix' with the Veil that is no longer fixed?

This Q and A item was dropped

Spoiler:

Q: Can a veil of darkness be used instead of moving onto the board
when a unit arrives from reserve? (p84)
A: Yes.

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 08:14:18

Post by: milkboy

I thought the Abyssal Staff potential abuse is much worse. You get to roll 2+ to wound when with Deathmarks and now you can cause instant death to T4 warlords because of the loss of the FAQ saying to use the target's Leadership to work out Instant Death. I don't see any errata for it in the new FAQ. Unless someone has the digital codex and can check it?

For Veil, it is a loss of utility though.

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 08:36:36

Post by: col_impact

 milkboy wrote:
I thought the Abyssal Staff potential abuse is much worse. You get to roll 2+ to wound when with Deathmarks and now you can cause instant death to T4 warlords because of the loss of the FAQ saying to use the target's Leadership to work out Instant Death. I don't see any errata for it in the new FAQ. Unless someone has the digital codex and can check it?

For Veil, it is a loss of utility though.

Yes, the abyssal staff gets a buff for sure. Against Space Marines you can ID psyker HQs and other multi-wound targets which is definitely handy.

Even so, I would rather not benefit from slop. I would rather play in competitive environment that is free from random changes brought about by slop.

Reply by: Sirio - click to view full reply 

73319

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 08:39:26

Post by: Sirio

(this is indeed interesting, wouldn't know what to support)

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 10:02:14

Post by: Sigvatr

 milkboy wrote:
My post was half in jest. I agree with col_impact that more needs to be considered besides exactly RAW.

No TO ever goes for strict RAW, do not fall for lies that easily. Every TO negotiates with his team what's going to be on the rules or not. One example is the Abyssal Staff. That's another issue than the NS, though. The Abyssal Staff indeed only needs clarification. The NS case is different because one rule explicitely disallows you to re-embark on the NS and there is not a single trace of rules allowance for you to re-embark or the NS to be an exception to the rule. That's a lot different from other cases where something is simply not clear - here, we got an explicit interdiction to do something. You need more than just a clarification, you need an explicit higher priority allowance.

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 10:41:38

Post by: milkboy

The same restriction of embarking on a zooming flyer existed in 6th Ed. And because at that time, they had intended for re-embarkation, it was reflected in the FAQ. By losing that question, if the assumption is that when GW removes a previous permission it would no longer function in 7th, than the TO can disallow re-embarkation.

By following the same logic, if the FAQ previously gave permission to use the target's Leadership value for purposes of instant death with the Abyssal Staff, now that it is not present in 7th Ed, we must (because we are applying the same standards) also remove that permission in all 7th games. If not, it would be cherry picking of what is right, which brings us to a situation of trying to guess RAI.

Hypothetically, would you allow the Abyssal Staff to cause instant death on T4 models? If basing on my logic above, it should be as straightforward as disallowing re-embarkation.

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 11:08:18

Post by: Sigvatr

 milkboy wrote:
The same restriction of embarking on a zooming flyer existed in 6th Ed. And because at that time, they had intended for re-embarkation, it was reflected in the FAQ. By losing that question, if the assumption is that when GW removes a previous permission it would no longer function in 7th, than the TO can disallow re-embarkation.

By following the same logic, if the FAQ previously gave permission to use the target's Leadership value for purposes of instant death with the Abyssal Staff, now that it is not present in 7th Ed, we must (because we are applying the same standards) also remove that permission in all 7th games. If not, it would be cherry picking of what is right, which brings us to a situation of trying to guess RAI.

Hypothetically, would you allow the Abyssal Staff to cause instant death on T4 models? If basing on my logic above, it should be as straightforward as disallowing re-embarkation.

Re-read my post above. The Abyssal Staff is a clarification issue. It wounded against LD instead of T and it needed to be clarified whether you would ID vs. LD or T. In the case of the NS, there was an entirely new rule introduced. It's a major difference.

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 11:16:10

Post by: milkboy

Which is this entirely new rule that was introduced? I have read the thread but you brought up many points so I just want to be clear we are on the same page. Pun unintended of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I looked back at the few rules mentioned.

6th Ed rulebook
No permission to embark on zooming flyers

7th Ed rulebook
No permission to embark on zooming flyers

6th Ed FAQ Necrons
Nightscythe was changed to "Flyer" type
Access point was changed to "1 (the base of the model)"
FAQ stating they can embark

7th Ed FAQ Necrons
Nightscythe was changed to "Vehicle (Flyer)" type
Access point was changed to "1 (the base of the model)"

The only change I could see was loss of the FAQ clarification.
If there was a rule I missed which was introduced in 7th Ed, please let me know. I may have missed it.

Is this situation not similar to the Abyssal Staff? No rule changes or new rule introductions. Just loss of a clarification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just a word to the OP. Gavwil, if you have kept up with the discussion even though you are new, I would say give yourself a pat on the back. it's usually not that complicated.

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:12:38

Post by: Sigvatr

Hmm, let me rephrase that so you see the point.

In some cases, rules may need a clarification. This is the case when two different interpretations are possible. Two valid and rules-based interpretations of a case. The Abyssal Staff is such a case. It says that it wounds against LD instead of T, but ID refers to usually wounding against T.

Two rulings are possible:

a) You only ID when your attack is twice the LD of the target.

b) You ID as usual, thus when your attack's S is at least twice the T of the target.

Both are valid interpretations as the rules hint at both interpretations. That's where a clarification is needed, so that all of us know which one is the one to use.

Now, the case is different with the NS. There aren't two possible interpreations of the rules:

a) The NS is a zooming flyer. You cannot re-embark.

There is no rule hinting at you being able to re-embark. You only have the explicit disallowance to re-embark. In order to be able to re-embark, you would have to change the rules. This has been done in the old FAQ where GW gave explicit permission to re-embark in the NS.

Everything up until this point is pure fact and not under debate

What is up to debate right now is what GW wants us to play:

a) GW did a sloppy job, as usual, and just deleted a big part of the FAQ but intended to still be able to re-embark.

b) GW did a sloppy job, as usual, and deleted a big part of the FAQ, willingly taking the ability to re-embark away.

c) GW doesn't know what they're doing.

Note that c) always applies.

The thing is: the most recent and therefore only valid FAQ lacks the special rule. If going by RAW, you may not re-embark in the NS. How it is played, however, and thus how you house-rule it to be allowed, is up to your local meta / TO to decide for the two different possibilities pointed out above.

Hope that made it a bit more clear. Kinda.

tl;dr: The permission to re-embark was not a clarification, but a new rule.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:16:32

Post by: rigeld2

edit: He fixed it.

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:17:29

Post by: Sigvatr

Thanks a lot for the heads-up rig

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:26:44

Post by: milkboy

Actually I disagree because it is not mentioned that ID relies on what you are wounding against. The ID rule compared the Strength value of the attack vs the Toughness of the model. What you wound against has no impact on the conditions for ID because that is not stated in the ID rules. You statement the "ID refers to usually wounding against T" does not seem to be backed by the rule.

Therefore, without alluding to the 6th Ed FAQ, the interpretation is that as long as the S is twice of the T, instant death would occur. So there is also only one interpretation for Abyssal Staff.

So if you have to refer to the 6th Ed FAQ, so too must you for the NS case. Isn't that so?

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:33:14

Post by: Sigvatr

As I said, there are two legimitate interpretations and you chose one. Nothing wrong with that.

I did not refer to the invalidated FAQ. There was a discussion on Dakka (and in our meta as well) long before the FAQ was released, shortly after the infos about the Necron codex leaked. Since it happened at the end of 2013, I guess you did not see it because you started out in February this year.

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:45:44

Post by: milkboy

I still do to understand how it is a legitimate when it is not supported by any rules. Could you cite a rule that states Instant Death relies on the Ld value?

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:51:45

Post by: Sigvatr

Sorry, but I am not going into this debate again. This is about the NS and not the Abyssal Staff. There have been multiple threads about about the issue and I don't think it's worth bringing up again.

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 13:59:06

Post by: milkboy

Fair enough.

Since Sigvatr is unwilling to continue, perhaps someone who shares his view can explain it?

When I first heard that there was no re-embarkation in 7th, I didn't scrutinize it and just took it as it was. But after reading this thread and some reading up, I do not seem to find it agreeable.

So the question is, if there was no new rule change from 6th to 7th Ed, only a loss of a clarification, does that mean the clarification is now invalidated? The reason why the Abyssal Staff ties in with this discussion is because it is in the same situation as the NS.

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 14:01:49

Post by: Sigvatr

There was a rule change in the 6th FAQ, as pointed out above. There was no clarification, as pointed out above.

I'll try to make it even simpler for you:

A clarification is needed when something is not clear. What about the re-embarking issue was not clear?

Reply by: milkboy - click to view full reply 

83202

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 14:03:38

Post by: milkboy

Which rule was it that changed? I really cannot find one that did. It would help if you can quote it.

I'm not trying to be rhetorical here. I just do not see a rule change in any of the books or faq.

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 14:06:51

Post by: Sigvatr

The FAQ introduced the new rule...as pointed out above...

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 14:07:35

Post by: nosferatu1001

It changed the rule allowing you to embark into a zooming flyer, which the BRB forbids. IT was written as a FAQ but, like a number of their FAQs, is actually a rules change.

Reply by: Kangodo - click to view full reply 

66089

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 14:29:09

Post by: Kangodo

 milkboy wrote:
Fair enough.
Since Sigvatr is unwilling to continue, perhaps someone who shares his view can explain it?

Not really, but you can start a new thread on it?

So the question is, if there was no new rule change from 6th to 7th Ed, only a loss of a clarification, does that mean the clarification is now invalidated? The reason why the Abyssal Staff ties in with this discussion is because it is in the same situation as the NS.

One of my former posts gives a lot of information.
The situation is not exactly the same.

No FAQ: The Codex-wording of the NS-Access Point makes me think that units can embark on a Zooming NS.
FAQ1.4 (6th) removed those lines ánd added in a Q&A that specifically allows you to embark on them even though they are flying.
FAQ1.0 (7th) removed those lines and did not add anything to give them permission.

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 14:35:43

Post by: Sigvatr

 milkboy wrote:

Since Sigvatr is unwilling to continue, perhaps someone who shares his view can explain it?.

Just to clarify, btw, I never said which of the two possibilities I'd use.

Reply by: DarknessEternal - click to view full reply 

28444

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 17:42:02

Post by: DarknessEternal

If I have a codex, the current FAQ, and the 7th edition rule book, there's no indication that anything can embark onto a Nightscythe. The rulebook is the only thing that mentions it at all, and it says that it cannot be done.

It really is very simple.

No previous versions of any of those things matter; they are not rules that apply to the current game.

Trying to apply such things is the same as trying to field Pariahs or the Nightbringer, since they were in previous versions of the Codex.

Reply by: ashikenshin - click to view full reply 

41311

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 18:10:12

Post by: ashikenshin

Nope I don't think Abyssal Staff gets a buff since this is what it says on the digital codex:

“Shroud of Despair: To Wound rolls from the abyssal staff’s shooting attacks are made against the target’s Leadership, rather than Toughness (even with regard to Instant Death). The abyssal staff’s shooting attack has no effect against vehicles.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Codex: Necrons (Enhanced Edition).” Games Workshop, 2012. iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/codex-necrons-enhanced-edition/id538370665?mt=11

Even though I agree that FAQ doesn't change how the rules work, It's kind of cool to think that the invasion beams are for disembarking.

next part is fluff:

I think that an ancient race like the Necrons work like the Egyptian bad guys from stargate and their beams work both ways ( I don't use night scythes )

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 18:40:58

Post by: Sigvatr

Thanks for the input! This sadly adds to the confusion created by GW's weird way of handling FAQ - and sadly shows their high disinterest in creating and maintaining (!) a high quality set of rules.

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 18:53:41

Post by: col_impact

 ashikenshin wrote:
Nope I don't think Abyssal Staff gets a buff since this is what it says on the digital codex:

“Shroud of Despair: To Wound rolls from the abyssal staff’s shooting attacks are made against the target’s Leadership, rather than Toughness (even with regard to Instant Death). The abyssal staff’s shooting attack has no effect against vehicles.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Codex: Necrons (Enhanced Edition).” Games Workshop, 2012. iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/codex-necrons-enhanced-edition/id538370665?mt=11

Even though I agree that FAQ doesn't change how the rules work, It's kind of cool to think that the invasion beams are for disembarking.

next part is fluff:

I think that an ancient race like the Necrons work like the Egyptian bad guys from stargate and their beams work both ways ( I don't use night scythes )

This is very interesting. The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ, so from a strict RAW, the abyssal staff would still get the buff since the most current source misses the requisite clause "even with regard to Instant Death" (otherwise you don't have permission to handle ID differently). This just underscores the need to be active and common-sensical as a TO and not enslave oneself to strict RAW. Technically speaking, rules are not supposed to change with the dropping of a Q and A item.

The thing that is awkward about Sigvatr et al approach is that he is saying that GW is intentionally writing a rule in the case of the NS Q and A item that was dropped. GW don't see themselves as writing rules when the write Q and A items. Technically, the Q and A items are not supposed to have rule forming weight. And when you read the actual NS Q and A item that was dropped it reads like a clarification of rules given elsewhere. I see a strong RAI argument that the NS is intended by GW to allow re-embarking.

Yakface expressed this point eloquently

A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

I am not saying that the Sigvatr approach is not a viable solution to this problem. I just think a better solution to the problem is for a TO to actively track the slop and actively manage the ruleset, since GW is failing to do so.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 18:56:02

Post by: rigeld2

col_impact wrote:
The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ

No, it's not. The digital one has been updated more recently and therefore is "most current".

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:00:36

Post by: col_impact

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ

No, it's not. The digital one has been updated more recently and therefore is "most current".

When was it updated and does it have a 7th edition digital FAQ applied?

Reply by: Sigvatr - click to view full reply 

50832

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:07:02

Post by: Sigvatr

col_impact wrote:

the Sigvatr approach

I want this term to be patented, it got a nice ring to it...."The Sigvatr Approach"!

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:13:41

Post by: rigeld2

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ

No, it's not. The digital one has been updated more recently and therefore is "most current".

When was it updated and does it have a 7th edition digital FAQ applied?

After the 6th edition FAQ.
And likely not.

I'm not 100% sure on the last update date - https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/codex-necrons-enhanced-edition/id538370665?mt=11 someone running MacOS or Windows might be able to launch iTunes and see it. My iPad is way over there.

Reply by: ashikenshin - click to view full reply 

41311

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:32:34

Post by: ashikenshin

That was updated Nov 5th 2013

Reply by: DarknessEternal - click to view full reply 

28444

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:38:25

Post by: DarknessEternal

col_impact wrote:
I just think a better solution to the problem is for a TO to actively track the slop and actively manage the ruleset, since GW is failing to do so.

You really think the better solution is for someone to have a comprehensive memory of every ruling GW has made in the history of the game, memory because those rulings are no longer even available, instead of someone just reading the rules as they are currently printed?

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:44:01

Post by: col_impact

 DarknessEternal wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I just think a better solution to the problem is for a TO to actively track the slop and actively manage the ruleset, since GW is failing to do so.

You really think the better solution is for someone to have a comprehensive memory of every ruling GW has made in the history of the game, memory because those rulings are no longer even available, instead of someone just reading the rules as they are currently printed?

Nope. You just track the slop as changes happen. Because as we know with GW slop will happen.

Reply by: DarknessEternal - click to view full reply 

28444

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:53:04

Post by: DarknessEternal

So what you want is unachievable then and requires time travel.

Ok, I guess I can be done with this thread.

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 19:57:27

Post by: col_impact

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So what you want is unachievable then and requires time travel.

Ok, I guess I can be done with this thread.

So my ability to compare the penultimate Necron FAQ with the current Necron FAQ involves time travel?

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 20:00:28

Post by: Happyjew

col_impact wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So what you want is unachievable then and requires time travel.

Ok, I guess I can be done with this thread.

So my ability to compare the penultimate Necron FAQ with the current Necron FAQ involves time travel?

And for TOs who do not have older FAQs, either because they just started running tournaments or they get rid of out-dated FAQs?

Reply by: col_impact - click to view full reply 

85004

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 20:05:31

Post by: col_impact

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
So what you want is unachievable then and requires time travel.

Ok, I guess I can be done with this thread.

So my ability to compare the penultimate Necron FAQ with the current Necron FAQ involves time travel?

And for TOs who do not have older FAQs, either because they just started running tournaments or they get rid of out-dated FAQs?

You don't need anything older than the penultimate one. Do these TOs have computers with Google on them?

http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

And moreover all it takes is one larger TO organization like BAO/NOVA to do this and they can publish a standard that other TOs can implement without having to do any work on their own.

Reply by: Janthkin - click to view full reply 

1406

Necron Night Scythe @ 2014/07/16 21:03:13

Post by: Janthkin

I think we've had enough of this thread; all relevant information is present, and people are wandering quite a ways off topic.