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.

Thaccus wrote: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.

I like the way you think. i agree too! (though i suspect you meant to substitute 'banana' for "cannot disembark")

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they do not disembark, they do something else entirely. You cannot substitute because disembarking never happens.

The rule does not require you to be able to substitute anything. Being 'unable to disembark' is an (wholly redundant as of 6th ed) effect of the rule, not the trigger for it.

Your models do not have to be disembarking in order to apply the 'Nightyscythe Transport' rule in it's entirety, the vehicle just has to have been destroyed in some way.

Let is rest in piece now.

It seems a lot of people are working to hard to interpret one or two sentences that they are missing a pretty key thing here:

"Unlike the armoured carriers employed by other races, the Night Scythe does not have a transport compartment as such. Instead, it deploys troops by means of a captive wormhole whose far end is anchored on a distant Tomb World."
...
"If the Night Scythe is destroyed, its payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established... this is preferable to them being destroyed outright as they can join the campaign's later stages"
-Necron Codex 'Night Scythe' p. 51

If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed.
-BRB 'Flyers - Crash and Burn' p. 81

It clearly explains in the Necron codex that unlike other transports, they do not actually carry their passengers, that their passengers are isolated from the battle. There are no models within, so there are no S10 hits.

The codex contains the rules for Necrons, not a single sentence that people are agonizing over. GW spent an entire paragraph explaining just how devoid of embarked passengers a Night Scythe is. I think reading it would have been a much better use of your time than essentially nine pages of "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU UNLESS IT'S RAW"*

*(please note that in this case, RAW happens to be the parts of the book you decided are RAW... so who's interpreting rules now?)

That would be a great argument.
So no models are embarked, right? I mean, they can't be if the Scythe doesnt actually carry any inside.

If you're going to try and argue that those paragraphs are rules rather than fluff... Have fun. Let me know so I can start killing thousands of orcs with a single Marine, or sucking an entire Craftworld dry with a single 90 point model.

You are correct that no models are ever embarked on a Night Scythe. In the portions that it mentions them embarking or disembarking, they are using a known mechanic to try and explain why the models suddenly disappear from the table.

Fearspect wrote:You are correct that no models are ever embarked on a Night Scythe. In the portions that it mentions them embarking or disembarking, they are using a known mechanic to try and explain why the models suddenly disappear from the table.

Fluff-wise you're correct. No models are actually inside.
Rules-wise they're treated as being inside the Night Scythe just like any other transport.
Nothing in the rules (note: rules, not background) says to treat it differently.
Different rules for disembarking, but nothing to say they aren't considered 'inside' the transport,

Fearspect wrote:You are correct that no models are ever embarked on a Night Scythe. In the portions that it mentions them embarking or disembarking, they are using a known mechanic to try and explain why the models suddenly disappear from the table.

Except the rules state they are embarked, and that they disembark. In the actual rules of the game, those models are embarked.

FLuff is not always rules, especially when the rules specifically cover the situation.

Also - i gather you havent read the thread, as this fluff argument has been posted pretty much every page. Please have the courtesy of not just jumping in with both feet with the same, discredited argument.

Rules wise they are not treated as being inside. Codex trumps BRB. Models in reserve do not take Str 10 hits. Models that are on the table take a Str 10 hit.

You can not change the rules for your own advantage. What does the FAQ say about the deployment of Necron Troops from the Night Scythe. Nothing.

So if the new FAQ says nothing then the Codex overrides the BRB. This is not new.

A downed NS will always put it's passengers into reserve. They are not taking Str 10 hit.

MJThurston wrote:Rules wise they are not treated as being inside. Codex trumps BRB. Models in reserve do not take Str 10 hits. Models that are on the table take a Str 10 hit.

Since you said "rules-wise" you must be able to cite a rule backing that up, right?

You can not change the rules for your own advantage. What does the FAQ say about the deployment of Necron Troops from the Night Scythe. Nothing.

Nothing? So the entry that says to add Invasion Beams which refers to embarked models disembarking is "Nothing."?

So if the new FAQ says nothing then the Codex overrides the BRB. This is not new.

Besides the insulting tone you're implying there isn't an actual rule in the codex that overrides anything in the BRB except placement.

A downed NS will always put it's passengers into reserve. They are not taking Str 10 hit.

The first sentence is correct. The second has no rules support.

Codex trumps BRB. Show me where that is not in the BRB.

Oh it is. So you go by the codex when it comes to placing the troops out of the NS.

What are you arguing? You make them take a Str 10 hit and then back into reserve. LOL. That's funny.

So these results in the new rules equal destroyed. Rolling a 6 on the damage table, reducing the model to 0 hull points and Crash and Burn.

If a NS gets any of the above results, any unit that has not deployed from a NS go into reserve.

As for RAW. Not allowed to disembark. So if they can't disembark they do what? Just die? No they go into reserve.

So by RAW, BRB = Codex trumps BRB.
So by RAW. Units in NS do not disembark but go into reserve.

Now we have RAW and RAI both saying the same thing.

Another fishing trip with no fish.

MJThurston wrote:Oh it is. So you go by the codex when it comes to placing the troops out of the NS.

Right, instead of disembarking they go into reserve. Show me where models disembark in a crash and burn.

What are you arguing? You make them take a Str 10 hit and then back into reserve. LOL. That's funny.

I'm glad I amuse you?

If a NS gets any of the above results, any unit that has not deployed from a NS go into reserve.

That's not what the rules actually say.

As for RAW. Not allowed to disembark. So if they can't disembark they do what? Just die? No they go into reserve.

That's not what the rules actually say.

So by RAW. Units in NS do not disembark but go into reserve.

So by RAW. Units from the Tyranid codex never suffer wounds.
See? I can say something is RAW when it actually has no rules backing as well.

Another fishing trip with no fish.

Yes, you're millions of times more brilliant and well read than any of us. We should bow down to your greatness and apologize for even considering starting this discussion.

Or, you could try to be less offensive when you post. Either way really.

LOL I thought this thread was dead ,with both sides agreeing to disagree

This rule and the argument, only really matters to you and who you play ,people know what i think and for me, its easy as every person i play reads it the same as me

To continue arguing just to prove who is right so you can say" ha ha ha you were wrong" is pointless.

Raw has been use to prove both sides are right which proves RAW is read differently by people, again proving this argument cannot be won

Lets go over order.

Flier takes a hit that destroys it.

Passengers go to reserve.

A blast template is put on the table and scatters

Model in the template take Str 10 hits.

No models are in the template so they do not take a Str 10 hit.

Pretty Clear to me.

MJThurston wrote:Lets go over order.

Flier takes a hit that destroys it.

Passengers go to reserve.

Can you cite why you're doing this at this step?

A blast template is put on the table and scatters

Model in the template take Str 10 hits.

No models are in the template so they do not take a Str 10 hit.

That's not how the actual rules work. Perhaps familiarize yourself with them?

I'm sorry, it's a Str 6 hit for the Large Blast Template.

I have to eat some more crow on this.

Clearly the models are embarked, the NS rule clearly says model embarked.

This needs to be FAQ'd. I see both arguments but as I'm reading the rule I get this.

Models embarked take a Str 10 hit with no save. If they can't be placed within 3" of the template they are casualties. So the NS says that they go to reserve and can't be placed within 3" which makes them casualties.

I think a fair way to do it right now is to make them take a Str 10 hit and any survivors can go into reserve.

I really wish GW would get a few American Rule Lawyers to go over issues like this before rules come out.

MJThurston wrote:I think a fair way to do it right now is to make them take a Str 10 hit and any survivors can go into reserve.

I really wish GW would get a few American Rule Lawyers to go over issues like this before rules come out.

Thank you, and I agree.

You guys are pretty relentless . Just as an aside, this question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said no, they do not take the hits. I don't expect this to change minds or be considered canon--but I think it does show how different the mind set is between studio staff that write the rules--and us YMDC inhabitants that examine them .

AgeOfEgos wrote:You guys are pretty relentless . Just as an aside, this question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said no, they do not take the hits. I don't expect this to change minds or be considered canon--but I think it does show how different the mind set is between studio staff that write the rules--and us YMDC inhabitants that examine them .

I'm sure it's what was intended. It's absolutely not what was written.

It's questionable what was written hence 9 pages of heated discussion. Just because you see it one way and think your grasp of the rules is right doesn't mean you're right. Seeing the response from the design team is good enough for me to know what's right in this particular case. No offense intended.

Dozer Blades wrote:It's questionable what was written hence 9 pages of heated discussion. Just because you see it one way and think your grasp of the rules is right doesn't mean you're right. Seeing the response from the design team is good enough for me to know what's right in this particular case. No offense intended.

The 9 pages where one side kept going back to quoting fluff to justify their stance?
Those 9 pages?

Just checking.
No offense intended.

I thought it was hilarious when you attempted to make up your fluff to support your case.

No amount of fluff can stop the rules for NS saying that Units EMBARKED never disembark from a destroyed NS but are put into reserve.

Rules for Fliers states that EMBARKED models take a Str 10 hit.

Pretty straight forward and fluff doesn't save you.

Dozer Blades wrote:I thought it was hilarious when you attempted to make up your fluff to support your case.

I never did. I was pointing out some absurdity and showing that my case can be explained with fluff - having the actual rules in my case as opposed to fluff works to my benefit.

I don't think either side is going to change the others' minds.... Well excepting mr. flippy floppy.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm sure it's what was intended. It's absolutely not what was written.

ERM sorry but you says that's what was written as you interpret it that way, but its clear others don't based on this on going argument, and the fact the question was put to the design studio at Open Day--and they laughed and said "no, they do not take the hits", proves they read the rules as written the same as me and others who believe they don't take the hit ,which again proves 2 things.

1 RAW is not black and white in this situation and can not be used to make a definitive answer .
2 Using RAW alone to say you are right and i am wrong is just showing a lack of commonsense which this games needs as much as RAW to be played .

No, what it means is that the people who know the intention of the rule know what is *should* say. That does not mean they actually expressed that at all in their written rules

RAW, they take the hits. There isnt a RAW argument against it - you repeatedly saying there is, when every. single. time. you were proven wrong, is tedious.

RAI you can easily "fluff" a reason they take the hits, as was done a couple times.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, what it means is that the people who know the intention of the rule know what is *should* say. That does not mean they actually expressed that at all in their written rules

RAW, they take the hits. There isnt a RAW argument against it - you repeatedly saying there is, when every. single. time. you were proven wrong, is tedious.

RAI you can easily "fluff" a reason they take the hits, as was done a couple times.

Raw +codex +BRB

When a flyer that is also a transport is destroyed (crash and burn) models embarked take str 10 hits

Codex when a night scythe is destroyed the unit embarked is not allowed to disembark but instead enter reserves .

Crash and burn is not disembarking by RAI but for RAW it is .

So by using Raw if i do anything thing other than put my unit embarked in the night scythe in reserve i am breaking RAW .

Codex states unit goes in to reserve when scythe is destroyed not wait and resolve all damage and such

As i read RAW(and so do lots of other people ) scythe goes bang unit into reserve resolve crash and burn

As you read it Scythe goes bang resolve crash and burn then unit goes into reserve.

Proof no matter what you say that people read RAW differently !!!!!

All you are doing is saying how you interpret RAW is right and anyone that disagrees with you is wrong .

Read the thread again see HOW people are reading RAW Differently ,and then accept RAW is not black and white in this case .

"So by using Raw if i do anything thing other than put my unit embarked in the night scythe in reserve i am breaking RAW .
"

Wrong. You are only given permission to replace disembarking with going into reserve. You are not given permission to ignore the other parts of crash and burn

repeatedly saying "Ths is RAW!!!!" when you dont understand how the ruleset is constructed doesnt make something RAW, nor does it make it not black and white.

You have permission to do one thing (enter reserves) instead of another (disembark). Find int he Necron codex ANY RULES which say you DONT take the S10 hits.

I have read this thread - oddly enough, given i was involved all the way through and have kept on pulling you up on your "RAW" shenanigans all the way through.

Some people will argue till theyre blue in the face that the sky is, in fact, green. THis does not mean that there is any doubt the sky isnt green.

I have read both rules and didn't see the EMBARKED part.

Crash and Burn states EMBARKED unit takes a Str 10 hit.

NS says a unit EMBARKED can never disembark.

So here is where RAW joins the two rules.

RAW for the NS says that the units are EMBARKED. They hint at a wormhole but never say the unit is not in the vehicle. It even tells you how many the models the NS can hold.

It is 100% RAW that the unit EMBARKED take the Str 10 hits. The real debate is if they unit is destroyed (can't be placed with in 3" of template) or if it goes into reserve.

So as I said and it was agreed to by at least one member.

"Unit takes Str 10 hits and the survivors go to reserve."

I don't know why there is such a tough argueing going on here for a very clear topic...

We have two things here which dont happen at the same time:

1. Taking s10 hits
2. Disembarking

So during the normal procedure an embarked unit takes s10 hits and any survivors are then placed within 3" of the blast template created by the wrecked flyer.
So the disembarkation takes place after they have taken hits.

Now the Nightscythe-passengers do not disembark, they are placed in reserve instead.
So the second part is overridden by the codex and therefore the passengers still get s10 hits according to the part not overridden.

If GW wanted passengers treated as not embarked, they would have written something like that in the rules.