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.

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?