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

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.