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.

And I am content to play as I always have until this crops up in one of my games.

As you should and more power to you for doing so; i just hope i answered your question efficently.

If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW

The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.

As rough as he put it, nos is correct. I think everyone is at their wits end arguing this and as bad as it seems, it looks like we are stuck taking the hits just a little longer. It will change, but until it does, we must be patient.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW

The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.

yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:As rough as he put it, nos is correct. I think everyone is at their wits end arguing this and as bad as it seems, it looks like we are stuck taking the hits just a little longer. It will change, but until it does, we must be patient.

I think that the fact several post have out lined Their reading of RAW to say no hits, proves that Nos is not correct by RAW nor by RAW is my no hit correct , and since both can be seen as correct or not (depends on how YOU read it ), RAW in this case cannot alone sort out the argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Yes but he would have showed that you read the rule wrong and giving you an FAQ so you had it in BW would only clarify that. not change the rule

I take it noone else plays "if a rule is sufficiently unclear, (eg, causing an 8 page thread) the disadvantage goes to the owning player?"

The problem is that unclear rules should be brought up to GW and FAQ'd immediately, not six months later, which GW has a habit of doing. I find it funny and a bit sad that ten days into 6th edition we have a mostly broken rule, as it refers to actions that cannot be performed by the vehicle, then instructs you to do something else.

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW

The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.

yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:As rough as he put it, nos is correct. I think everyone is at their wits end arguing this and as bad as it seems, it looks like we are stuck taking the hits just a little longer. It will change, but until it does, we must be patient.

I think that the fact several post have out lined Their reading of RAW to say no hits, proves that Nos is not correct by RAW nor by RAW is my no hit correct , and since both can be seen as correct or not (depends on how YOU read it ), RAW in this case cannot alone sort out the argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Yes but he would have showed that you read the rule wrong and giving you an FAQ so you had it in BW would only clarify that. not change the rule

two things

1) Even if the FAQ creates expresses the way GW interprets the rules, it owns and writes the rules for the game, so it is no longer RAI, it is RAW, because GW has essentially said "This is how this rule works" not "this is how we feel the rule should work
2) I would take others' advice and steer clear of YMDC. This isn't as much of a "here are how you have to play the rules at your local games" (since I am sure about 99% of the people here either talk to their opponent or see what the TO says on the matter), but more of a "What is GW actually telling you to do with these rules?"

Please correct if I am wrong on either thing, but your are just making the wrong argument in the wrong sub-forum

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW

The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.

yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded

And how will you know that? Given they *very* rarely explain *how* they want something to work? When they change the rules so that no-hits, will you claim this was a clarification of intent?

You do realise that is a cant win situation, yet?

Oh, and others never disproved anything. They never used "RAW", a phrase you over use.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

snakel wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:If they change the rule (halberds, SitW) then by definition they have changed the RAW

The rules do not support you Snakel. Admit that, state you are playing a house rule, and move on.

yes i agree IF THEY CHANGE THE RULE but if the wording is changed to show the true intent of the rule much clearer the rule has not changed just the way its worded

And how will you know that? Given they *very* rarely explain *how* they want something to work? When they change the rules so that no-hits, will you claim this was a clarification of intent?

You do realise that is a cant win situation, yet?

Oh, and others never disproved anything. They never used "RAW", a phrase you over use.

1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .

2 If wording is changed to show how i read them in the first place to be right how can the rule be changed

3 Do you realize this is a no win situation also ?until FAQ'ED of-course

snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .

Rules As Written.
Also, if the wording changes the rule changes. Not sure how that's hard to understand.

snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .

That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.

This came up in a recent game with my buddy. RAW it's pretty obvious they take the damage. RAI it's stupid and they shouldn't. It was our first game of 6th so we went RAW, but agreed it was dumb. Pretty sure it'll get FAQ'd away.

grendel083 wrote:

snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .

That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.

Pedantic lot tonight

Rules as written have to be read making them rules as read otherwise how can you know the rules if you cant read them ?

Your interpretation of the very definition of raw shows me you rely heavily on rai. That is fine. It its not fine, however, for ymdc.

Spot on in your observation.

snakel wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .

That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.

Pedantic lot tonight

Rules as written have to be read making them rules as read otherwise how can you know the rules if you cant read them ?

If the rules have been read, then they've been interpreted. One persons interpretation (or reading) of the rules can vary between another. Hence these arguments. That's why we try to use the strict wording as its written, and not by interpretation.

I have to say, RAW, it seems that they would take the hits.

I do have to say that I would let opponent just put them back into reserve without them, however. It seems very unsportsmen like to make them take the wounds when it is very clear they weren't intended to.

Alright, So, I am unsure if this one has been addressed yet, but has anyone noticed that in the wrecked flyers section of the BRB, it never allows the transported unit to "Disembark"? It simply instructs you to "place" surviving the models within 3" of where the blast template lands. To be clear, It defines disembarking (or emergency disembarking) as the way one would escape a wrecked vehicle (moving out from access points up to 3") or leave an intact vehicle (moving out from access points up to 6").

For destroyed fliers or exploding regular transports, it just has you placing models.

Now, the Nightscythe rule states that "The embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but must instead be put into reserve." Now, from the strict interpretation of RAW that this board tends to adhere, is the nightscythe special rule completely obsolete until it's FAQ'd?

As a necron player, I can certainly see that this rule is worded to contradict the intention of the writer. I can deal with that for the time being. However, It seems like it's a double whammy that RP rolls cannot be made for a unit off the field. (Because you can't "place the model in coherency" with something that isn't currently in play). However, if the survivors are placed on the field, as RAW would seem to require, then RP rolls are peachy keen.

snakel wrote:

grendel083 wrote:

snakel wrote:1 RAW = Rules as read ,not rules as read by only people who read them the same as me .

That would be Rules As Written, otherwise it would be RAR.

Pedantic lot tonight

Rules as written have to be read making them rules as read otherwise how can you know the rules if you cant read them ?

Rules as Written, not as interpreted by you.

You dont "read" them, you instead parse the words to divine the meaning of the sentence. Which we HAVE been doing, and you have instead been interpreting A meaning despite it not being what is written

Thank you guys for this discussion, it has been an interesting and informative and actually incited me to make a forum account so that I may join. After reading the entire thread and following along in the relevant codices, I feel that progress is being made, but a few points have been left a bit unclear.

To start I would like to put out a summary of points I believe we have established. This should make clear anything we need to reopen.

We have seen evidence of of the vehicle being defined as passengers under dedicated transport(BRB:78).

We have seen evidence for advanced rules override the contradicting basic rule in cases where they conflict(BRB:7). On this same page we have seen all rules in codices defined as advanced as well as the direct statement "the rule printed in the codex always takes precedence" In regards to BRB-Codex conflicts.

We have seen precedence for partial replacement of rules. With Grand Master Mordrak's First to the Fray(GK Codex:40) and Deep Strike(BRB:36). I would like to add that this is a weak precedence as First to the Fray directly references the rule it overwrites/conflicts with and NS Transport does not. A better precedence should be found and I don't doubt they are out there. As this is the only precedence put foreward for or against the matter it must be used.

We have established that "In stead" refers to "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark"(Necron Codex:51) And also that disembarkation does not happen within crash and burn(BRB:81).

We have established that "If the Night Scythe is destroyed" means the trigger for implementing the NS rule is NS destruction and not disembarkation(BRB:81).

If anything above is not clear we need to discuss it further.


Below are things are still unclear to me and I believe are still a bit unclear in general. If we could I would like to see these discussed thoroughly and pedantically. I have provided a basis for and argument below each as a base, this is purely a jumping point and does not mean that I promote either side.

Does the partial rule override include "Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties"? Although the sentence was written with the intention of referring to the above statement, that statement is "override[n]" by the advanced rule in the NS entry as it directly conflicts. The NS rule does not directly conflict with the statement in question unless we say that it was intended to correlate to the overridden statement. Intentions are irrelevant here. Furthermore, is the unit already in reserves by the time this part of the rule would apply and can you "place" a unit while it is in reserves?

What defines a vehicle being destroyed? The only reference to destroyed within Resolving Damage(BRB:74) is weapon destroyed. Do we use dictionary terms here? Can we do that in YMDC? Do we use OED or Merriam Webster? If we define it as destroyed when it takes the wrecking hit, then the rules for NS enact before CnB comes into play. The first line of the rule CnB says "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down on the battlefield." Does it count as destroyed then? Is this even part of the "rule" or is it fluff? Clearly its within the rule section. Does this means we must break our model, light it on fire, and then throw it at our board? Do we have precedence for fluff within rules elsewhere? how then do we define what is rule and what is fluff? What about when the model is removed from the table? Surely it is destroyed then as it no longer even exists as a unit. If destroyed is never defined in BRB and we can't use dictionary definitions; is it ever destroyed? Does the NS rule even get applied at all?

From where does being a passenger confer embarked? If it does not, then does the NS rule apply?

I hope I have pushed this thread in an interesting direction or two and I look forward to a long and underhandedly rude post form rigeld2. Cheers

GiantSlingshot wrote:Alright, So, I am unsure if this one has been addressed yet, but has anyone noticed that in the wrecked flyers section of the BRB, it never allows the transported unit to "Disembark"? It simply instructs you to "place" surviving the models within 3" of where the blast template lands. To be clear, It defines disembarking (or emergency disembarking) as the way one would escape a wrecked vehicle (moving out from access points up to 3") or leave an intact vehicle (moving out from access points up to 6").

This has been addressed. Since you do not disembark, you cannot be put in reserves instead of disembarking. At least that is the argument.

Adressed and rejected with no rules reference.

Happyjew wrote:

GiantSlingshot wrote:Alright, So, I am unsure if this one has been addressed yet, but has anyone noticed that in the wrecked flyers section of the BRB, it never allows the transported unit to "Disembark"? It simply instructs you to "place" surviving the models within 3" of where the blast template lands. To be clear, It defines disembarking (or emergency disembarking) as the way one would escape a wrecked vehicle (moving out from access points up to 3") or leave an intact vehicle (moving out from access points up to 6").

This has been addressed. Since you do not disembark, you cannot be put in reserves instead of disembarking. At least that is the argument.

Disembarking is not the trigger for being put into reserves. The rule states "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but in stead enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike)"

There have been several people who have made it very clear in the previous pages of this thread that this defines destruction as the trigger and not disembarkation. I shall attempt this again as it is clearly not understood yet.

"If the Night Scythe is destroyed" Is the trigger condition for the following actions. Once this condition has been met, the following rules are immediately in effect.

"the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark" Is an immediate removal of the unit's ability to disembark. This is not an action, it is a removal of possible future action(that will not happen anyhow). In no way does this change when this rule is put into effect.

"but in stead" This is where I assume most of the confusion comes from. In stead is defined as "as a substitute or equivalent". We are substituting the unit's old disembarkation allowance for the following effect. In no way does this change when the Night Scythe rule is put into effect either.

"enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike)" Is an immediate change of the units status as passengers on the Night Scythe to units in reserve. The parentheses disallow deep striking at any time during (a new condition) the arrival of the unit affected by this rule. This section only changes when one effect happens, the disallowance of deep strike. In no way does it change when the Night Scythe rule is put into effect in any other way.

Thaccus wrote:"but instead" This is where I assume most of the confusion comes from. In stead is defined as "as a substitute or equivalent". We are substituting the unit's old disembarkation allowance for the following effect. In no way does this change when the Night Scythe rule is put into effect either.

Substituting would still require the disembark to be possible. RAW, it's not. There is no disembarkation allowance, therefore you can't enter reserves.

Exactly. Instead of disembarking, you do X. If disembarking is not possible, you dont get to do X

The old disembarkation allowance of NO is still a state of disembarkation allowance. This is substitutable. The fact that it is redundant and/or irrelevant does not make it nonexistent.

edit: nonexistant is not a word
edit 2: Neither is nonexsitent

Except they do not disembark, they do something else entirely. You cannot substitute because disembarking never happens.

I don't think anyone is going to change anyone elses mind at this point. Sticka fork in it - its done.

Do and can are not the same.
Again you are not substituting disembarkation. Disembarkation itself is not part of the NS special rule. You are substituting whether or not it is allowed to disembark. Even if it is not relevant or possible it is still not allowed to disembark RAW. The fact that is not allowed to disembark can be substituted for something else.

It also comes to my attention that what you substitute is irrelevant. You can quite easily substitute nothing for something and something for nothing. You do not need it to be possible, it does not even need to make sense
Given the nature of "in stead" we could just as easily substitute "banana" for "enters reserve" and enters reserve would still apply despite the banana never having a rule.