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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually.

Q and A entries don't make rules. They clarify how rules are to be interpreted elsewhere. The dropping of a Q and A entry is the only change.

Besides, how can you make any substantive statement? You have refused to even read the penultimate FAQ.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually.

Q and A entries don't make rules. They clarify how rules are to be interpreted elsewhere.

Wrong. Example: NS case. Permission was introduced in the Q&A section. Properly read up on a matter before discussing it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
And that's my point. The rules are fully clear on this, anything changed is house-ruling. Nothing wrong with that.

Another way of looking at it is that you have a very weak RAI argument because of the obvious slop that is introduced.

In the contrary. GW has purposefully (!) removed the permission. Perfect RAI actually.

Q and A entries don't make rules. They clarify how rules are to be interpreted elsewhere.

Wrong. Example: NS case. Permission was introduced in the Q&A section. Properly read up on a matter before discussing it.

Permission was clarified in the Q and A section, not introduced. Read the penultimate FAQ. Properly read up on a matter before discussing it.

Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

What exactly does the 6th edition FAQ have to do with 7th edition?

FAQs occasionally do change rules. For example, during 5th edition, the following was answered two different ways.:

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle?

GW has both answered No, and Yes.

In cases where RAW are iffy, such as what counts as a Daemon for Grey Knights, referring to an older FAQ, sets precedent, as nothing has changed.

However, when a rule specifically forbids something, whether or not it was allowed in a different edition, has no bearing. Otherwise, Tyranid players just might try to get Biomancy back.

So, since besides merely rooting for attention, you start baiting again, just summing it up for anyone actually interested in the matter at hand:

Q: Can you re-embark on a Night Scythe?

A: No. The Night Scythe is a zooming flyer without Hover mode. As per p. 84 BRB, units are not allowed to embark on a zooming flyer.

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where in the rules, that you claim have not changed, is it allowed for a NS to be re-embarked?

If there is no allowance in the rules, then the allowance has been introduced by GW themselves and then be taken away again.

And to save you some time: there is no proof.

Have you read the penultimate FAQ?

What exactly does the 6th edition FAQ have to do with 7th edition?

FAQs occasionally do change rules. For example, during 5th edition, the following was answered two different ways.:

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle?

GW has both answered No, and Yes.

In cases where RAW are iffy, such as what counts as a Daemon for Grey Knights, referring to an older FAQ, sets precedent, as nothing has changed.

However, when a rule specifically forbids something, whether or not it was allowed in a different edition, has no bearing. Otherwise, Tyranid players just might try to get Biomancy back.

If you bother to read the penultimate FAQ you will see that permission was clarified and not introduced in the Q and A section.

col_impact wrote:
If you bother to read the penultimate FAQ you will see that permission was clarified and not introduced in the Q and A section.

I have read the FAQ. It changed the rules. Normally you cannot embark into a Zooming Flyer. The FAQ changed it for Night Scythes. Therefore, the FAQ changed the rule, not clarify it.

TBH why would you want to embark back on to the NS...from what ive seen people only use them to drop off deathmarks + cryptek so he can use his template...

like i said im new so im not aware of any other tactic

Gav

 Happyjew wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If you bother to read the penultimate FAQ you will see that permission was clarified and not introduced in the Q and A section.

I have read the FAQ. It changed the rules. Normally you cannot embark into a Zooming Flyer. The FAQ changed it for Night Scythes. Therefore, the FAQ changed the rule, not clarify it.

The Q and A item only clarified. Read the Q and A item.

GW claims that Q and A only clarify, however, they also use it to change rules.

Gavwil wrote:
TBH why would you want to embark back on to the NS...from what ive seen people only use them to drop off deathmarks + cryptek so he can use his template...

like i said im new so im not aware of any other tactic

Gav

For the record, I don't care about what happens to the NS. This is just a watershed case in point of GW slop being introduced and whether or not TOs should feel empowered to clean up obvious slop.

The other items involved here are changes to the Veil of Darkness and the Abyssal Staff which are up for possible rolling back to 5th edition implementation also because of slop.

The painful reality is GW is sloppy and RAW doesn't work really well in a sloppy situation. I wish it did. But sloppy is the reality.

RAW strict TOs will force players to suffer through the slop.

"Common Sense" TOs will try to patch the slop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
GW claims that Q and A only clarify, however, they also use it to change rules.

So it seems that you are handing me the RAI argument here.

Or it's just possible that the "obvious slop" is a thematic choice and that Necrons aren't supposed to be able to re-embark on their Night Scythes, since they can phase out anyway so there's no need to pick them up after the battle.

Why does nobody ever consider that the transport capacity of a night scythe is supposed to be used like a drop pod?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Or it's just possible that the "obvious slop" is a thematic choice and that Necrons aren't supposed to be able to re-embark on their Night Scythes, since they can phase out anyway so there's no need to pick them up after the battle.

Why does nobody ever consider that the transport capacity of a night scythe is supposed to be used like a drop pod?

A lot of people do. I mean, they are called "INVASION beams" after all. It's just one person trying to be special

The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

A RAW strict TO approach is going to buff the staff even though its obviously not intended.

A Common Sense TO approach is going to push forward the RAI that can be gleaned from the penultimate FAQ and not let slop change things that shouldn't be changed.

And, nowhere am I saying that a strict RAW TO approach is necessarily a wrong choice.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Guys, the removal of previous errata items in the 6th edition FAQs is not a black and white case no matter how much you want to argue in circles over and over again.

The fact remains, those items *were* changed via errata, and DO still exist in all GW Digital publications. So for example, the Night Scythe embarkation rules ARE in all digital Necron codexes, and for all I know they might be in the newest print version of the codex as well.

Even if they aren't in the most current print version of the codex, GW still tends to bill the digital versions of the codexes as being the 'most up to date'.

So really that's the issue here. GW removed the 6th edition errata from the 7th edition FAQs, but those errata still remain (at least) in the digital codex. Either they did it because they felt the errata had already been in place long enough for people to know about it (a very bad reasoning to remove errata, BTW), or because they genuinely wanted to get rid of it, in which case the fact that they haven't removed that errata from the digital editions yet makes that concept equally problematic.

Whichever is the case, until we see a digital edition updated with the 6th edition errata removed, we cannot know for certain what the heck GW is doing…so trying to have a 'RAW' argument about this stuff right now is pointless, as there are two versions of the RAW. The old print codex you bought combined with the new 7th edition FAQs and the Digital edition of the codex, which has the 6th edition errata in it (but hasn't been updated in most cases to incorporate the 7th edition FAQs).

col_impact wrote:
The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Just to point this out: you neither are a TO, nor a competitive player and you do not know how the rules are organizd and work. Not sure how you would therefore be able to say what is good / viable or not. In the contrary, you're the last person anyone should talk to.

Abyssal Staff is worked out by the rules already as it specifies to use the target's LD instead of T when wounding. Not to mention that this also is RAI.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Or it's just possible that the "obvious slop" is a thematic choice and that Necrons aren't supposed to be able to re-embark on their Night Scythes, since they can phase out anyway so there's no need to pick them up after the battle.

Why does nobody ever consider that the transport capacity of a night scythe is supposed to be used like a drop pod?

A lot of people do. I mean, they are called "INVASION beams" after all. It's just one person trying to be special

Please note that per Necron codex NS are specifically empowered as being able to only carry Jump Troops and Jet bikes. Please explain how Jet Bikes ever get on a NS. Now, I am not submitting that as proof of anything beyond RAI food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Just to point this out: you neither are a TO, nor a competitive player and you do not know how the rules are organizd and work. Not sure how you would therefore be able to say what is good / viable or not. In the contrary, you're the last person anyone should talk to.

Abyssal Staff is worked out by the rules already as it specifies to use the target's LD instead of T when wounding. Not to mention that this also is RAI.

Read the Instant Death rules and apply them.

 yakface wrote:



Whichever is the case, until we see a digital edition updated with the 6th edition errata removed, we cannot know for certain what the heck GW is doing…so trying to have a 'RAW' argument about this stuff right now is pointless, as there are two versions of the RAW. The old print codex you bought combined with the new 7th edition FAQs and the Digital edition of the codex, which has the 6th edition errata in it (but hasn't been updated in most cases to incorporate the 7th edition FAQs).

That actually is interesting. Does the FAQ in the digital versions have a time stamp on it?

/e: Actually, the old FAQs are invalidated anyway as they are 6th and not 7th, so I'd say 7th takes precedence.#

/e2: GW - quality rules since...uhm...

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The same overall situation is happening to the abyssal staff which is getting buffed to be able to Instant Death T4 due to the slop.

It's obvious that GW's intent is not for us to play the abyssal staff that way.

I am only saying that is not the only viable TO choice here.

Just to point this out: you neither are a TO, nor a competitive player and you do not know how the rules are organizd and work. Not sure how you would therefore be able to say what is good / viable or not. In the contrary, you're the last person anyone should talk to.

Abyssal Staff is worked out by the rules already as it specifies to use the target's LD instead of T when wounding. Not to mention that this also is RAI.

Please keep the personal attacks coming here. It helps others see how unprofessional you are.

It's not a FAQ they change the wording in the digital editions from time to time to include the changes in the FAQs

Gravmyr wrote:
It's not a FAQ they change the wording in the digital editions from time to time to include the changes in the FAQs

I am kinda confusd about what "It" means here

Let me reword then. There is no FAQ in the Digital Edition they rework the wording to include the changes in the FAQs from time to time. The last change they did includes the beaming up as well as beaming down.

Thanks!

Is there a time stamp for the change?

No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Gravmyr wrote:
Let me reword then. There is no FAQ in the Digital Edition they rework the wording to include the changes in the FAQs from time to time. The last change they did includes the beaming up as well as beaming down.

Can you post the beaming up, beaming down wording?

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

Sorry for the confusion. I had forgotten that although GW added the 'invasion beams' rule into the digital codex, they didn't ever add the second correction (about being able to embark back onto the vehicle as well…I think that was a FAQ addition rather than a errata, IIRC).

So in this particular case, the digital edition doesn't actually still say that you can re-embark.

But my overall point still remains, which is: the actual errata items that GW dropped from the 6th edition FAQs to the 7th edition FAQs are still in the digital books. So everyone wanting to assume that their removal from the 7th edition FAQs means that GW has purposefully reversed their position on all those points needs to take a step back and realize that it is not so crystal clear.

GW has completely and utterly dropped the ball for the 6th to 7th transition when it comes to their FAQs and their digital publications, as they no longer match. The only digital publications they've updated since 7th dropped are ones that didn't have any big errata in them pre-7th edition, so we can't tell which direction GW is actually going with this.

At best, we are just in a holding pattern right now waiting to see what GW is going to do for these types of issues, and any tournament is just going to have to make the call one way or the other about which way to go. Whatever they decide, some people will be showing up to the event with codexes that are incorrect (which is never good).

 Sigvatr wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
No idea. I would assume though that it is pre-7th.

Hmm, thanks anyway. If it's dated before the BL FAQ, it's invalidated anyway though.

In effect there are two base codexes here. So if I bring the electronic codex to a tourney I get to re-embark units onto the NS.

Waiting for confirmation that there is indeed a "beaming up" . . .