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.

That is the most simple and accurate description I have read yet. Thanks Naz !

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

simple people wont accept RAW can be interpreted differently

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

The fact that 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 thought they had!! and also thought people would grasp that fact through RAI

So y ou've dropped your claims that it is RAW? Given you've not supplied any contrary rules to prove your side......

RAW is black and white on this. Whether this is what they intended is up for debate (the studio open day is not listed int he tenets of this forum, is it? I assume you've read them?) but what they WROTE in the rules is .... they take the S10 hits

There is no agre to disagree when one side hasnt a single rule to back their position

nosferatu1001 wrote:So y ou've dropped your claims that it is RAW? Given you've not supplied any contrary rules to prove your side......

RAW is black and white on this. Whether this is what they intended is up for debate (the studio open day is not listed int he tenets of this forum, is it? I assume you've read them?) but what they WROTE in the rules is .... they take the S10 hits

There is no agre to disagree when one side hasnt a single rule to back their position

Agreeing to disagree is the correct thing to do

Evey person i have played so far reads it that they don't take the hits.

Me and you will never play nor would we want to since i would say roll off as its not black and white as i read it differently to you ,and you would insist you were right

I tried to argue that no hits happen repeatedly.

But....I went over each rule a few times and could not for the life of me escape one fact.

Both rules talk about EMBARKED. It doesn't matter how or when or if they Disembark.

So Embarked unit takes a Str 10 hit. RAW on this is very clear.

Embarked unit takes Str 10 hit.
NS has an Embarked squad.

Disembarked in any way doesn't save you. Put into reserve doesn't save you.

We all should know the intent was for Squads in NS to just be put into reserve but RAW does not support this intent. If the rules had stated that the NS was empty until the units disembarked then this would not be an issue.

The NS rules clearly state that a unit is Embarked. Crash and Burn does damage to Embarked units.

It can't get any simpler. The hard part is deciding if they are destroyed afterwards or put into reserve.

In a rules debate, when one side has rules, and the other doesnt, "agree to disagree" gives a veneer of rules credibility to one side that isnt warranted.

So no, not the correct thing to do. Ruleswise you are *wrong*. As the rules are currently written, you are *wrong*

The plural of anecdote isnt evidence.

who is wrong nos?

Me! Nope,

People don't like this because we all know what it should say. It doesn't say the right things and you can blame GW for it's poorly written rules.

No one has ever blamed GW for making a balance game. No one has ever blamed GW for making clear cut rules.

So we are left to figure out what to do.

I think we all agree that RAW beats RAI. In this case RAW clearly wins out on the hit part. Confusing on the rest.

Do I think the unit goes into reserve with no hits. I believe that is what GW intended. They didn't write it well.

I was replying to Snakel - context is fairly obvious there.

snakel wrote:

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

simple people wont accept RAW can be interpreted differently

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

The fact that 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 thought they had!! and also thought people would grasp that fact through RAI

You do realize the difference between RAW and RAI, right?

None of us here are geniuses, and very few of us have English degrees. And I'd bet even fewer actually write game rules for a living.
If we read the rules they actually wrote and come to a conclusion they didn't intend, that doesn't mean we're wrong - it means they failed at writing rules. They can laugh all they want.

Also, RAW doesn't require interpretation. That'd require looking at intent.

As above.

A lot of people are using "RAW" incorrectly, when they really mean "RAI"

Unfortunately, RAW is simply one way of looking at things. This are the 'You Make Da Call' forums, not the 'RAW is the only correct way to play" forums.

Unless an FAQ comes out specifically stating that transported squad must take the Str 10 hits, a lot of people are fully justified not assigning them that damage.

Long story short: RAI (which a few of you focus on to discredit another position) is not, at its core, incorrect.

Fearspect wrote:Long story short: RAI (which a few of you focus on to discredit another position) is not, at its core, incorrect.

I don't disagree with that completely.
But in YMDC we discuss rules - we don't try and divine intent because that will lead to 5 people having 6 opinions on what they actually meant.
You should familiarize yourself with the tenets of this subgroup (you're not violating any of them, it just seems from your post that you're not familiar with them) before criticizing.

It is, given I can give a "RAI", aka "fluff the way around it", such that they do take the hits. A good couple were given already in this thread, if you'd read back

The rules, as written, mean they take the hits. RAI is ANYONES guess.

If you disagree, please remember the tenets of the forum - please back up your "RAI" with page and para from a rulebook, codex or FAQ that actually contradicts the true written rules

I did, on thread page 9, third post down. The third paragraph from the Night Scythe does this.

I mean, nosferatu1001, you post here a lot. You must know that situations come up quite often where the RAW is so ambiguous that two (or more) correct interpretations exist. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it happens enough that strict RAW definitions need to be scrutinized a little more to get some consistency in the game.

rigeld2: I am familiar with the tenets. In this case, I am simply reminding people that what this seems to be is a butting of heads between RAW and HWYPI. It just goes around in circles not unlike how a toilet deals with waste.

Fearspect wrote:I did, on thread page 9, third post down. The third paragraph from the Night Scythe does this.

Sigh. That's not rules. you posted a fluff paragraph which can't have any bearing on a rules discussion.

I mean, nosferatu1001, you post here a lot. You must know that situations come up quite often where the RAW is so ambiguous that two (or more) correct interpretations exist. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it happens enough that strict RAW definitions need to be scrutinized a little more to get some consistency in the game.

They really don't. The fact that there are some instances where we need to start looking at intent does not mean that we should examine fluff for intent in every case.

Or should I auto-win vs Craftworld Eldar when I field the Doom of Malantai?

rigeld2: I am familiar with the tenets. In this case, I am simply reminding people that what this seems to be is a butting of heads between RAW and HWYPI. It just goes around in circles not unlike how a toilet deals with waste.

It's going around in circles because some people (evidently yourself included) refuse to accept that there can be a difference.
The rules say they take the hit. The only arguments people have come up with to refute that are fluff based and not actually rules.
Playing that way is fine, but it's a house rule and not the actual rules.

I think you need to take a look at #4 of the tenets of this forum, rigeld2. You break this continuously.

Fearspect wrote:I think you need to take a look at #4 of the tenets of this forum, rigeld2. You break this continuously.

If you think I am, click the yellow triangle.

Nos said to cite rules to support your argument. You cited your post on page 9 which contains no rules.
I even said there's a difference between HYWPI and RAW. It's the other side in this thread that refuses to accept that fact.

Fearspect wrote:I did, on thread page 9, third post down. The third paragraph from the Night Scythe does this.

Which is fluff. And, if you had read the thread has been dealt with over, and over, and over.

It also doesnt deal with the fluff'ed "RAI" which shows how they can still, "RAI", take the S10 hit. Which you have also failed to address - I suspect because you havent bothered to read the thread to date.

Fearspect wrote:I mean, nosferatu1001, you post here a lot. You must know that situations come up quite often where the RAW is so ambiguous that two (or more) correct interpretations exist. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, but it happens enough that strict RAW definitions need to be scrutinized a little more to get some consistency in the game.

This is not one of those situations. The RAW is absolutely 100% utterly and incontrovertibly clear. How do we know this? Because in 9 pages noone has yet managed to actually argue THE RULES. There have been many attempts at arguing the fluff, everytime ignoring the counter-fluff presumably because this fatally undermines their attempt at a fluff argument

RAW: they take the hits
RAI: they take the hits. or they dont take the hits. Shock, noone knows for sure.

Fearspect wrote:rigeld2: I am familiar with the tenets. In this case, I am simply reminding people that what this seems to be is a butting of heads between RAW and HWYPI. It just goes around in circles not unlike how a toilet deals with waste.

It is a butting of heads between people who believe their fluff is also rules, and those who treat the rules simply when they are unambiguous

The rules are unambiguous.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is not one of those situations. The RAW is absolutely 100% utterly and incontrovertibly clear. How do we know this? Because in 9 pages noone has yet managed to actually argue THE RULES. There have been many attempts at arguing the fluff, everytime ignoring the counter-fluff presumably because this fatally undermines their attempt at a fluff argument

RAW: they take the hits
RAI: they take the hits. or they dont take the hits. Shock, noone knows for sure.

Sadly No!!! if that was the case this argument would have ended a long time ago .

hence why we disagree because your interpretation of RAW differs from mine ,and before anyone says it ,the written word is read then the brain interprets the words and make seance of that written word ,hence anything written HAS to be interpreted and we interpret it differently

No it doesnt

Your disagreement has no rules basis, as has been shown consistently throughout this thread. You simply choose to ignore one rule entirely, when you are only given permission to trade one part of the rule (disembarking) and not the whole.

Again: you have zero. nil. zip. zilch. nada. RULES reason to rmeove the S10 hits. You have only ever posted a fluff argument, and a BAD rules argument - bad, because when challenged it falls apart.

We also parse language, not interpret it. Subtle difference.

I find it strange people want to break a rule that has been explained how it actually works by the design studio. You can't lay this one to blame on the steps of GW's house.

Dozer Blades wrote:I find it strange people want to break a rule that has been explained how it actually works by the design studio. You can't lay this one to blame on the steps of GW's house.

[citation needed]

Have you bothered to read the tenets of this forum? "I chatted to a guy from the studio open day" isnt a source of information for this forum as far as rules debates go.

Here is case where you clearly know the intent of the person who wrote the rules.

snakel, I'm going to address your last post that discussed rules.

snakel wrote: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 .

Let me stop you right there. That sentence is wholly incorrect. Show me the word "disembark" in the crash and burn rules.
To make the Night Scythe transport rule not wholly useless, instead of putting the unit in reserve when you disembark, we'll allow you to put them in reserve instead of placing them.

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

The codex says do not disembark, instead put the unit into reserve.
You're trying to put them into reserve immediately when there's no rules based reason to.

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 !!!!!

Yes, some people don't let fluff influence how the rules should be read.
Others obviously do.

Please cite the reason you are choosing to follow the Night Scythe rule at the step you asserted, instead of when the models are placed.
Your continued defense that this is one "interpretation" of RAW is the only reason I'm asking you to do this.

If you instead want to call this RAI or HYWPI then fine - I have absolutely no problems with that.
But you have zero standing to claim it is a possibly correct reading of the rules based on what you've posted in this thread.
You claim that the Night Scythe rule that mentions disembarking happens far before any method of getting out of the flyer ever happens. Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dozer Blades wrote:Here is case where you clearly know the intent of the person who wrote the rules.

I clearly know the intent of the person who wrote the rules based on some persons statement of what was said.

As far as RAW that changes nothing.
As far as RAI or HIWPI it changes nothing because I'm fine with the unit not taking the hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No it doesnt

Your disagreement has no rules basis, as has been shown consistently throughout this thread. You simply choose to ignore one rule entirely, when you are only given permission to trade one part of the rule (disembarking) and not the whole.

Again: you have zero. nil. zip. zilch. nada. RULES reason to rmeove the S10 hits. You have only ever posted a fluff argument, and a BAD rules argument - bad, because when challenged it falls apart.

We also parse language, not interpret it. Subtle difference.

This is going sour ,i don't really care what you think or believe i play with people who think the same as me, every person i play with thinks this is a stupid argument and that its clear they don't take the hits ,call it a house rule all you want i suppose when the writers of the rules play it the same way as me that's a house rule to .

Fact. this argument has no out come other that to continue on its circle path

I always though that YMTC was a place to clarify rules and with rules like this you take the majorities idea over the few but there is no majority ,so truly here you have to make the call yourself and ignore anything else.

so have fun but remember even if you can prove your right ,if its not written down in black and white you must be wrong

McNinja wrote:If the Necron troops embarked upon a Night Scythe take damage, then the entire third paragraph of fluff in the Night Scythe entry is completely irrelevant. You might as well take a sharpie to your codex and redact that paragraph. .

You mean like the scout ability of Valks and Vendettas over the "All flyers must start in reserves", even if the flyer in question can be a hover craft and has the scout special rule?

You should have learned by by now that BRB overrides Codex when the majority of the 40k crowd does not like the units you use.......

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

McNinja wrote:If the Necron troops embarked upon a Night Scythe take damage, then the entire third paragraph of fluff in the Night Scythe entry is completely irrelevant. You might as well take a sharpie to your codex and redact that paragraph. .

You mean like the scout ability of Valks and Vendettas over the "All flyers must start in reserves", even if the flyer in question can be a hover craft and has the scout special rule?

You should have learned by by now that BRB overrides Codex when the majority of the 40k crowd does not like the units you use.......

...
Not even comparable. McNinja is talking about a fluff paragraph.
You're talking about an ability that isn't useless - all the Flyer rule means is that you can't redeploy before the game starts. You can still outflank just fine.

*cough* i argued the rules. My main point was that the 'entire' crash and burn transport rules are replaced by the nightscythe 'vehicle destroyed' ones, not just the parts of it about the models ending up on the table and taking a Str 10 hit for that matter. I don't think the rules allow you to chop up the 'crash and burn' rules to the degree that you only follow the str 10 hit part and nothing else.

You want RAW? fine.

RAW -> 'Codex > Main Rule' book. (I've said this before...)
"...Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules..."

Ok then, so it's my job to prove that one rule conflicts with the other right?
Ok.
Nightscythe Rule:
...If the Nightscythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve...
Zooming Transport Rule:
"...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 saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties..."

One rule tells you to put an embarked unit in reserve if the vehicle is destroyed, the other tells you to hit the embarked unit a bunch of un-armor-savable times and put it on the table if the vehicle is destroyed. I'm sure folks can see how those conflict.

Frankly i'm not a big fan of the hubris that is occuring within this thread that presumes that there is only one possible way the above rules can interact within RAW and therefore that there is only one possible representation of the rules. As such this will be my last post in this thread most likely, as i cannot rationally argue with that sort of obstinacy. My money is with the 'RAW is inconclusive in this case so agree to disagree' camp though.

Neo, the problem with what you're saying is that the conflict only happens with placement - nothing at all is mentioned about the damage.

Where are you getting permission to replace the damage part?

I contend the 'takes damage' aspect is part of the rule being superceded by the codex.