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.

IGotBodied, you need to read the Tenets of the YMDC stickied at the top of the forum:

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

rigeld2 wrote:

Neorealist wrote:
You still haven't come forward with actual rules support to counter anything I've said - or did I miss it?

You did. People on the pro side have been posting their own interpretations and you have chosen to ignore them or just be snide =P

Bylak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:does the "no hit" side want to post some actual rules that back their position up?

Sure! As pointed out by the poster I quoted . . .

digital Necron Codex (provided by a previous poster) wrote:"If the Night Scythe is destroyed the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters Reserves (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).

pg. 81 wrote:If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, it's flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". And model under the blast marker's final position suffers a strength 6, AP - hit. The Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a strength 10 hit with no armour sames allowed.

If we're following the RAW and the order of operations on pg. 81 it'd go:

1) Flyer destroyed
2) unit enters reserve
3) large blast marker placed - scatters 2D6"
4) models under take str 6 AP - hit
5) Flyer taken off the board.

What I'm putting forward here (as suggested by a poster earlier in the thread, I just kind of elaborate) is that the unit is removed from the Night Scythe at the destroyed result roll before the blast marker scatters, not after taking the S10 hit.

So better question is, how does a unit in reserve take moral and pinning tests? If the NS picks up a squad of immortals with an attached overlord with a phase shifter and he makes his invuln, how does he make a moral check?

The RAW for this is pretty clear, if the NS is destroyed (you know rolling that pesky 6 on the damage chart) that triggers the unit goes back into reserve clause of the NS unit entry. No s10 hits, no fuming from your ears, just good old fashion goes back into reserve.

You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.

How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.

Your point number 5 - quote the words that are giving you that allowance you assert exists. Also, you continue to ignore things like the Night Scythe never wrecking if you ignore the entirety of that rule.

rigeld2 wrote:You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.

How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.

Your point number 5 - quote the words that are giving you that allowance you assert exists. Also, you continue to ignore things like the Night Scythe never wrecking if you ignore the entirety of that rule.

I'm just outlining the order of operations on page 81 there as I see the NS rule fitting in? Flyer gets destroyed result, models go into reserve, centre blast marker over model, blast marker scatters (blast marker I'm assuming replacing the Flyer, representing the wreck crashing into the ground), models under blast take hit, surviving models in Flyer (for generic transports) would take str 10 hit at this point.

Unless I'm not understanding what you're asking about here. Totally possible since I'm super tired!

Bylak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You still haven't come forward with actual rules support to counter anything I've said - or did I miss it?

You did. People on the pro side have been posting their own interpretations and you have chosen to ignore them or just be snide =P

You can think that. Or you can read the thread. Either way.

Bylak wrote:If we're following the RAW and the order of operations on pg. 81 it'd go:

1) Flyer destroyed
2) unit enters reserve
3) large blast marker placed - scatters 2D6"
4) models under take str 6 AP - hit
5) Flyer taken off the board.

What I'm putting forward here (as suggested by a poster earlier in the thread, I just kind of elaborate) is that the unit is removed from the Night Scythe at the destroyed result roll before the blast marker scatters, not after taking the S10 hit.

A) At step 2, what is allowing you to disembark?
A') if you're not allowed to disembark, why are you allowed to do something the rules say you can only do instead of disembarking?
B) Since you can't disembark, I'll still let you use the rule. Let's look at where it makes sense to apply it - it was limited to disembark before, right? So why are you trying to insert it before the unit is placed?

rigeld2 wrote:You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.

How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.

You missed the first part of that rule, which states ' When the Nightscythe is destroyed...'

The 'Nightscythe Transport' rule replaces what happens when the vehicle is wrecked, not what happens when the unit tries to disembark from said wrecked vehicle. Being unable to disembark from it is an 'side-effect' of the Nightscythe rule, not a trigger.

The Night Scythe rule is allowing you to disembark >.< Well not disembarking rather, entering reserve. You're interpretation of the rule is that the unit leaving the NS happens at the str 10 hit, I'm suggesting that it happens when the destroyed result on the NS is rolled.

Taken literally, the Night Scythe rule does nothing.

I disagree here. Taken literally, the nightscythe rule telling you you are not allowed to disembark does nothing FURTHER. This is very different than what you are saying.

Again, to try and clarify what I have said before, the rule is:
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve."

Now, I am glad we currently all agree that you don't disembark from a Night Scythe.

However, the 'instead' is 'instead of being allowed to disembark.' This is VERY VERY different from 'instead of disembarking.' The rule does function, the only part that does nothing further is not being allowed to disembark, as you already can not disembark.

Its kind of like not being able to shoot at normal BS because your heavy weapon moved, and not being able to shoot at normal BS because you are targeting a flyer. In the case where you move AND shoot a flyer with a heavy weapon, the penalty (BS1) applies 2 times, but the second time does nothing FURTHER. Just like here, where being in a flyer means you are not allowed to disembark, and being in a destroyed night scythe means you are not allowed to disembark. The second disallowing of being able to disembark does nothing FURTHER.

Also, it was said that a flyer is not destroyed until after 'Crash and Burn' has completely resolved. This is incorrect. The rules on pg 74 tell us that the vehicle is destroyed before removing the vehicle or turning it into terrain. Crash and Burn does not change this.

Anyway, as I have said several times, the rule does not read that you go to reserve instead of disembarking. You are not allowed to disembark from a destroyed night scythe and instead go to reserve from a destroyed night scythe (which happens when the night scythe is destroyed).

moosifer wrote:So better question is, how does a unit in reserve take moral and pinning tests? If the NS picks up a squad of immortals with an attached overlord with a phase shifter and he makes his invuln, how does he make a moral check?

The RAW for this is pretty clear, if the NS is destroyed (you know rolling that pesky 6 on the damage chart) that triggers the unit goes back into reserve clause of the NS unit entry. No s10 hits, no fuming from your ears, just good old fashion goes back into reserve.

Nope. First, the night scythe can't "pick up" anything, a unit has to start in the night scythe. Second, the rule says you go to reserves instead of disembarking. You never disembark. Crash and burn does is not disembarking. The night scythe transport rule, as it is written, does nothing.

Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You're not using the Night Scythe rule correctly.
The unit does not disembark, instead it goes to reserves.

How are you opting to do the latter when you never get the choice to do the former. You can't go to reserves instead of taking a S10 hit etc., the rule only allows you to go to reserves instead of disembarking.

You missed the first part of that rule, which states ' When the Nightscythe is destroyed...'

The 'Nightscythe Portal' rule replaces what happens when the vehicle is wrecked, not what happens when the unit tries to disembark from said wrecked vehicle. Being unable to disembark from it is an 'effect' of the Nightscythe rule, not a trigger.

I didn't miss that at all, thanks.

So you continue to assert that the Night Scythe doesn't become a wreck? If you're replacing CnB in its entirety, you've just created the biggest loophole for an invincible unit I've ever seen.

When it's destroyed, you don't disembark, you go into reserves.
If A then !B and C.
If you cannot apply !B, C cannot apply either.

EDIT: Gods dammit why does this keep happening t'nite >.< Ignore this post.

Nope, the vehicle is wrecked just fine. What i'm asserting is that the unit goes into reserves as a result of that rather than applying the 'crash and burn' rules as they apply to transports.

When it's destroyed, you don't disembark, you go into reserves.
If A then !B and C.
If you cannot apply !B, C cannot apply either.

See my post 2 above yours. Your logic is flawed here, as you keep using disembark as your timing. B, in your example, is NOT DISEMBARK. It is the debuff 'not allowed to disembark.' The same debuff found on zooming flyers. It applies the entire time after the vehicle is destroyed, NOT JUST WHEN DISEMBARKING.

Except that we aren't disembarking anyway, so the rule allows us to do something (go to reserves) instead of something else (disembark) which we can't do anyway.

Crash and Burn is not disembarking. The rule does not allow for a dismebark, it spells out what happens, and it certainly is not a disembark. If you can't do the first part, you can't do the second part, making the rule pointless.

McNinja wrote:Except that we aren't disembarking anyway, so the rule allows us to do something (go to reserves) instead of something else (disembark) which we can't do anyway.

Crash and Burn is not disembarking. The rule does not allow for a dismebark, it spells out what happens, and it certainly is not a disembark. If you can't do the first part, you can't do the second part, making the rule pointless.

Oh sweet emperor on his throne, i'm impressed with the resiliance of both this thread and the above stance.

I'm going to endeaver to state this definitively, so please excuse the huge font in advance:

The 'Nightscythe Transport' rules trigger when the vehicle is destroyed. Wether or not the models embarked on it are disembarking as a result of some other rule is Completely Irrelevant to the application of the 'Nightscythe Transport' rules apart from the fact that they prevent you from doing it (disembarking) if you were otherwise going to.


To use some pseudo code:
Correct:
IF
(the vehicle is destroyed)
THEN
(you may not disembark the models on it)
AND
(put the models embarked on it in reserve)

Incorrect:
IF
(you are disembarking models as a result of the vehicle being destroyed)
THEN
(you may not disembark the models on it)
AND
(put the models embarked on it in reserve)

Hopefully the above clears some things up?

Neorealist wrote:

McNinja wrote:Except that we aren't disembarking anyway, so the rule allows us to do something (go to reserves) instead of something else (disembark) which we can't do anyway.

Crash and Burn is not disembarking. The rule does not allow for a dismebark, it spells out what happens, and it certainly is not a disembark. If you can't do the first part, you can't do the second part, making the rule pointless.

Oh sweet emperor on his throne, i'm impressed with the resiliance of both this thread and the above stance.

I'm going to endeaver to state this definitively, so please excuse the huge font in advance:

The 'Nightscythe Transport' rules trigger when the vehicle is destroyed. Wether or not the models embarked on it are disembarking as a result of some other rule is Completely Irrelevent to the application of the 'Nightscythe Transport' rules apart from the fact that they prevent you from doing it (disembarking) if you were otherwise going to.

How do you know that's the Emperor on the throne? Chaos Space Marines call it the false emperor for a reason.

Actually, just after i posted that I considered simply ignoring that part about disembarking.

This is why you don't write codices with a future edition in mind, people.

I concur, it could have been worded better to mesh with the 'Crash and Burn Transport' rules and 6th ed in general.

I suspect it was not as clear as it could have been as referencing those rules too closely would let the 'cat out of the bag' (so to speak) about what goodies 6th edition had in store for flyers and wouldn't have been too relevant in 5th ed.

Still that is little excuse not to issue a comprehensive FAQ that actually covers this sort of thing rather than the half-full and half-baked FAQ we currently have after the new material was released.

Neo, thank you for the concise and terminology laced argument to the opposite standpoint.

Based on the wording of crash and burn, the vehicle is first destroyed. It is then taken off the table. Based on codex terminology, the unit goes to reserves at this point and the "may not disembark" terminology is ambiguous.

Therefore, the embarked unit is already in reserves when the template is placed and therefore does not take any hits.

Just a thought,

How does the Necron unit taking a strength 10 hit prevent them from still going into reserves when the flyer is destroyed?

Here is the thing about this argument,

One side is freely admitting that yes the Necron unit does go into reserves, albeit after taking the str 10 hit, thus fulfilling all sets of rules pertaining to flyers, destroyed flyer transports, embarked passengers, and the NS rules.

The other side seems to only want to acknowledge the rules as they pertain to NS flyers.

So one argument incorporates all the rules and ther other cherry picks the most advantageous.

Brother Ramses wrote:Just a thought,

How does the Necron unit taking a strength 10 hit prevent them from still going into reserves when the flyer is destroyed?

Here is the thing about this argument,

One side is freely admitting that yes the Necron unit does go into reserves, albeit after taking the str 10 hit, thus fulfilling all sets of rules pertaining to flyers, destroyed flyer transports, embarked passengers, and the NS rules.

The other side seems to only want to acknowledge the rules as they pertain to NS flyers.

So one argument incorporates all the rules and ther other cherry picks the most advantageous.

Nope.

One side incorporates the rules in one way, the other side, another way. Both are technically legal, but (coming full circle here now) I'm thinking the no S10 hit side has the edge, mainly because nothing in the Flyers section mentions anything whatsoever about disembarking, making that little part of the rule rather pointless and wholly meaningless.

McNinja wrote:One side incorporates the rules in one way, the other side, another way. Both are technically legal, but (coming full circle here now) I'm thinking the no S10 hit side has the edge, mainly because nothing in the Flyers section mentions anything whatsoever about disembarking, making that little part of the rule rather pointless and wholly meaningless.

I'm pretty sure the 'may not disembark' part of it it is a hold-over from 5th edition where the nightscythe was a more ordinary transport. If i recall correctly you would have been required to perform an emergency disembarkation if the transport was destroyed in that edition?

In 6th though given it is now a 'flyer' which doesn't have the 'hover' special rule? It's pretty much moot wether or not you can disembark from it when it blows up since you can 'never' disembark from it under any normal circumstances that you could find it in play anyway; which is why i think they wrote up that 'invasion beams' rule which has been hastily FAQed for it so it now 'sort of' works properly.

I really wish they'd thought to include a way to put a unit back on it; sort of makes the ability to carry things that cannot take it as a dedicated transport and start the game in it a waste of rules-text at the moment.

Fluff-wise, it's an INVASION beamer, not a "run away! beamer".

Rules-wise, how did the vehicle explodes! result read in 5th? Did it have the disembark or place terminology?

rigeld2 wrote:
I am not wrong right now, as you can show me no rules that I am.
Should the rules change in the future that would obviously change how the rules read.
Rules changing in the future does not make me wrong now.

If you'd be happy to admit you're wrong in the future, why can you not admit you're wrong now?

So for you RAW is always right even when future FAQ's don't support how you read RAW .

So in other words if the rule is written clearer to show what the original RAW was meant to mean, and that meaning is different from what you interpreted RAW to mean you say you are not wrong ?????

If you need GW to hold your hand and tell you everything to do you will be waiting a very long time .

What a person writes and how they read what they wrote, does make you wrong because you are refusing to budge even when you are told in future FAQ'S the original wording was not clear and what you thought it to meant was in fact wrong


I will state it again RAW alone is not enough RAW with RAI,logic and commonsense is.

snakel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I am not wrong right now, as you can show me no rules that I am.
Should the rules change in the future that would obviously change how the rules read.
Rules changing in the future does not make me wrong now.

If you'd be happy to admit you're wrong in the future, why can you not admit you're wrong now?

So for you RAW is always right even when future FAQ's don't support how you read RAW .

Correct. Because FAQs can change rules. So if the FAQ changes how the rules work, then that new method is correct.

So in other words if the rule is written clearer to show what the original RAW was meant to mean, and that meaning is different from what you interpreted RAW to mean you say you are not wrong ?????

I'm not wrong right now, and a change to the rules doesn't retroactively make me wrong. If the rules change and I still hold the (old) opinion, I'd be wrong then.

X=1. What is X+1? Right now it's 2. If you change X to 2, that doesn't make my former answer incorrect. It just means the answer is now 3.

I will state it again RAW alone is not enough RAW with RAI,logic and commonsense is.

Perhaps YMDC is not for you.

Sorry again we disagree if a rule is made clear for those of us unable to see past the exact wording so that is now reflects how it was meant to be read from the beginning then yes you are wrong .

In this case the rule has not changed just the original meaning of it has been spelt out for those unable to grasp it

If the person who wrote the rule came to your house and said sorry mate the Necrons don't take the hit your reading the rules to literally and the codex clearly shows that your understanding of RAW is wrong, would you argue then that you were right?

If the wording is changed to show how the rule should be used its only the wording not the rule that has changed .

But alas until the wording is change or the codex wording is updated you will say they take the hits, because after all if the rules say a cat is a dog ,if it barks, then that must be right !

Unfortunatly, black and white RAW takes precedence over RAI. For a while my sisters vehicles didnt get the benefit from shield of faith b/c vehicles couldnt take invul saves. I didnt like it, but I had to accept it. Black and white RAW is superior to RAI every day no matter how little sense it makes.

snakel wrote:If the person who wrote the rule came to your house and said sorry mate the Necrons don't take the hit your reading the rules to literally and the codex clearly shows that your understanding of RAW is wrong, would you argue then that you were right?

But the codex does not clearly show that my understanding is wrong.
If he told me to my face that I was wrong, I'd tell him to publish an FAQ - because despite what you think I'm not the only one that thinks this way.

But alas until the wording is change or the codex wording is updated you will say they take the hits, because after all if the rules say a cat is a dog ,if it barks, then that must be right !

Yes. I play according to the rules for this game. I try not to insert a bias or intent when reading a rule.

And that is how YMDC is supposed to be debated. I am a necrons player, yet I still belive that they should take the hits. We do not get special treatment b/c our fluff says we do. If that was the case then every fight would be a stalemate becasue no army cna be defeated in fluff.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Unfortunatly, black and white RAW takes precedence over RAI. For a while my sisters vehicles didnt get the benefit from shield of faith b/c vehicles couldnt take invul saves. I didnt like it, but I had to accept it. Black and white RAW is superior to RAI every day no matter how little sense it makes.

i think we've already covered how one reasonable interpretation of RAW precludes taking the hit, and another (again, reasonable) interpretation of RAW indicates the hit is resolved.

I believe the conclusion that was reached indicates that since you remove the Nightscythe from the table prior to the unit inside taking a hit, the models that were formerly inside it would already be in reserve by the time you'd otherwise apply the 'Crash and Burn' fall from the sky damage via a method of applying the 'codex > basic rulebook' rule and a few reasonable assumptions about the timing.

I'm not sure what the some of the above posters are still debating about, but they seem happy to continue do so.