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.

Neorealist wrote:I contend the 'takes damage' aspect is part of the rule being superceded by the codex.

That doesn't make any sense.
The Night Scythe rule only conflicts with the placement rule.

It's not even the same sentence - so it seems very arbitrary to pick those two sentences to replace instead of just the one that conflicts.

I'm not picking just two sentences arbitrarily.

I'm replacing this: "...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..."

with this:
"...the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..."

As they both say what happens when our flying transport is destroyed, and they both conflict with each other.

snakel wrote:
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 .

"too"

Then dont argue in here, claiming RAW when that isnt what you have been able to demonstrate. This isnt the forum for you.

We also have no proof the writers of the rules play it that way. Again, read the tenets of the forum you are posting in. "I spoke to the studio, honestly i did!!!!!" doesnt cut it as a rules argument, for hopefully blisteringly obvious reasons.

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

As long as one side continually ignores the written rules and prefer instead to cling to poorly justified fluff arguments, yes it will go round in circles.

snakel wrote: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.

The rules HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED, you just refuse to accept that. Sky is always green style arguments

Feel free to ignore this thread. But to continually tell people in thsi thread that it is "RAW" that they dont take the S10 hits when you havent provided a single ACTUAL RULE that states that, have not replied to any rules arguments with anything other than fluff, that is where things get tiresome.

snakel wrote: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

You havent proven a single thing. Nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neorealist wrote:I'm not picking just two sentences arbitrarily.

I'm replacing this:

with this:
[color=yellow"...the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..."

As they both say what happens when our flying transport is destroyed, and they both conflict with each other.

Not entirely. The only conflict is in the placement.

Where is your permission to ignore the S10 hits? Nothing in the NS rules conflicts with that portion of the rules.

But then, this is the same argument from pages back, when your only response was to continually state you arent allowed to part replace, despite being shown plenty of times when that occurs.

Neorealist wrote:I'm not picking just two sentences arbitrarily.

I'm replacing this:

with this:
[color=yellow"...the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..."

As they both say what happens when our flying transport is destroyed, and they both conflict with each other.

No, the only conflict is in placement. What part of the Night Scythe rule conflicts with the hit?

Nothing in the Night Scythe rule says "this is the only thing that can happen". It doesnt negate any damage, it just changes placement.

Edit: if it was a single sentence describing the hit and placement I'd agree with you. But because it's split up into steps I can't see that as being a valid reading of the rules.

Fellow Necron players, due to the order of operations on the Crash and Burn rules any embarked unit will take the hits. Yes it sucks as we then have to move the models to the reserves where there they will be unable to make RP rolls. To break it down for those that still dont understand;

1 Center the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6.

2 Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit.

3 The Flyer is then taken off the board.

4 If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armor saves allowed.

5 Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast markers final position and in unit coherency.

6 Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.

Above is the same paragraph from Crash and Burn on Pg 81, minus the first sentence as its only a description sentence.
Now, the rules for the Night Scythe;

Pg 51 Necron Codex wrote:Transport: The Night Scythe has a transport capacity of 15. It can carry jump infantry (each model takes up two points of transport capacity) and jetbikes (each model takes up three points of transport capacity). If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannot Deep Strike).

To make this easier for the above format:

5 The embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannnot Deep Strike).

Does this clear things up for folks still not understanding?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not entirely. The only conflict is in the placement.

Where is your permission to ignore the S10 hits? Nothing in the NS rules conflicts with that portion of the rules.

But then, this is the same argument from pages back, when your only response was to continually state you arent allowed to part replace, despite being shown plenty of times when that occurs.

That is where the contention lies: I`m saying the `entire` rule is replaced based on my reading of the applicable Basic vs Advanced rules. You are saying only `part`of the rule (ie: the part as you see it which directly conflicts) applies, based presumably on logic? I don`t believe a specific rule exists to indicate you can explicitly exchange only part of a rule unless the rule itself states this. (many do for what it`s worth, especially those involving reserve roll modifications or deepstriking exceptions)

Have i missed something?

Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not entirely. The only conflict is in the placement.

Where is your permission to ignore the S10 hits? Nothing in the NS rules conflicts with that portion of the rules.

But then, this is the same argument from pages back, when your only response was to continually state you arent allowed to part replace, despite being shown plenty of times when that occurs.

That is where the contention lies: I`m saying the `entire` rule is replaced based on my reading of the applicable Basic vs Advanced rules. You are saying only `part`of the rule (ie: the part as you see it which directly conflicts) applies, based presumably on logic? I don`t believe a specific rule exists to indicate you can explicitly exchange only part of a rule unless the rule itself states this. (many do for what it`s worth, especially those involving reserve roll modifications or deepstriking exceptions)

Have i missed something?

But you're not replacing an entire rule. You're replacing two sentences out of a rule.
The basic vs advanced (codex >brb) only applies if two rules conflict. You don't have permission to ignore/replace a non conflicting rule.

Three sentences actually; which i believe to be the entirety of the transport section of the crash and burn rules.

Crash and Burn is a process with a set of rules that happen in order. You only have permission to remove conflicting rules - taking the S10 hits does not conflict in any way with any part of the NS rules, so you have no permission to replace it.

Neorealist wrote:Three sentences actually; which i believe to be the entirety of the transport section of the crash and burn rules.

Which three sentences exactly?

The night scythe rules do not tell us to ignore the strength 10, AP - hit. Only that instead of placing our models after the template has finished drifting, we place the remaining unit into reserves.

Neorealist wrote:Three sentences actually; which i believe to be the entirety of the transport section of the crash and burn rules.

So you're replacing the entirety of a section with a rule that only conflicts with part of the section.

Why is that again? Why are you replacing the whole thing when it only conflicts with part if it?
That's my issue with your stance.

Forgive me if maybe I am looking at this too simply, but look at the damage table for vehicles. read the first sentence a word at a time "the...(nothing) vehicle....(nothing rule contradictory yet) is.......(nothing)....Destroyed. (FULL STOP, what does the necron codex tell you to do when the vehicle is destroyed? Put your unit in reserve. you have met the codex conditions, continue with the rules. D6 explosion, followed by crash and burn. wait what? D6 explosion on flyers? that's right kiddies, it doesn't say crash and burn instead, it says after resolving vehicle damage table, then do crash and burn. So if its already destroyed from earlier damage, the 'crons (usually immortals in my case) have already been shunted to reserve for the previous damage table. And before you say "but it says to use the model to center the template!" it also tells you the vehicle is destroyed, then a few steps afterwards to remove the model. so model on table does not mean it isn't already destroyed.

Xzerios wrote:Which three sentences exactly?

Please refer to my prior posting to view the rules, i don`t think anyone would be served by my posting them again.

rigeld2 wrote:So you're replacing the entirety of a section with a rule that only conflicts with part of the section.

Why is that again? Why are you replacing the whole thing when it only conflicts with part if it?
That's my issue with your stance.

Because i believe that entire section is one rule.

vongoob wrote:
Forgive me if maybe I am looking at this too simply, but look at the damage table for vehicles. read the first sentence a word at a time "the...(nothing) vehicle....(nothing rule contradictory yet) is.......(nothing)....Destroyed. (FULL STOP, what does the necron codex tell you to do when the vehicle is destroyed? Put your unit in reserve. you have met the codex conditions, continue with the rules. D6 explosion, followed by crash and burn. wait what? D6 explosion on flyers? that's right kiddies, it doesn't say crash and burn instead, it says after resolving vehicle damage table, then do crash and burn. So if its already destroyed from earlier damage, the 'crons (usually immortals in my case) have already been shunted to reserve for the previous damage table. And before you say "but it says to use the model to center the template!" it also tells you the vehicle is destroyed, then a few steps afterwards to remove the model. so model on table does not mean it isn't already destroyed.

Your forgetting the part where they are not allowed to disembark from the destroyed vehicle (per the Necron codex). This would put us on step five of six on the crash and burn rules. Step four is the Strength 10, AP - hit.

Also, it doesnt say to immediately move the (embarked) unit to reserves. It simply states that instead of disembarking (since in this matter, we are using the crash and burn rules) 3" away from the blast marker, we put them in reserves.

Neorealist wrote:

Xzerios wrote:Which three sentences exactly?

Please refer to my prior posting to view the rules, i don`t think anyone would be served by my posting them again.

While you have 'your' stance on the quotes, that would be RAI. Because the Night Scythe was changed to a from a Fast Skimmer to a Flyer in the errata, we must then follow the rules for Flyers. No? Since the Flyer section has rules for what to do when your vehicle is destroyed, you then follow them in their sequential order. Since the Necron Codex states that we dont disembark from the destroyed unit and instead enter the reserves. It comes into conflict with -that- part of the steps. Since we have an order of operation that Ive outlined above, and our conflict only arises after the hit, we are then forced to take the hit, and then move the unit to reserves; Per the order of operations of Crash and Burn.

Does it suck? Yes. However, those are the rules.

"instead of disembarking" is an additional restriction, not a qualifier. the trigger for the move to reserves is the "destroyed" vehicle. The only reason "instead of disembarking" is there is that so some asshat doesn't pull the old "well, your interceptor shot me in my movement phase so right before i blow up I will invasion beam" arguably, it could also just be a hold over from 5th edition when night scythes were skimmers and you disembarked from them after damage. As for the "not being told when" to put them in reserve I could just as easily argue that as justification to do it before the crash and burn. It doesn't tell me when, so why not before? The unit was embarked, but if you follow the codex before rulebook rule, wouldn't you have to shunt them to reserve before crash and burn? The codex does take precedence after all.

Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So you're replacing the entirety of a section with a rule that only conflicts with part of the section.

Why is that again? Why are you replacing the whole thing when it only conflicts with part if it?
That's my issue with your stance.

Because i believe that entire section is one rule.

Do you have anything to support that? Or just your gut based on fluff?

The fact that it's three separate sentences that are all part of the Crash and Burn rules would tend to disagree with you - if you have other examples in similar situations it'd be nice.

Crash and burn doesn't say disembark, it says place[u] survivors. Not even speaking the same language, as pertains to rule mechanics. I stick to my previous statement on the disembarkation reference being a redundant restriction (telling you that you cannot do something you cannot do anyway) rather then a requirement for the rule to function. otherwise, if you really want to get RAW hardcore, since the survivors are "placed" the rule would never work and not even matter either way.

vongoob wrote:"instead of disembarking" is an additional restriction, not a qualifier. the trigger for the move to reserves is the "destroyed" vehicle. The only reason "instead of disembarking" is there is that so some asshat doesn't pull the old "well, your interceptor shot me in my movement phase so right before i blow up I will invasion beam" arguably, it could also just be a hold over from 5th edition when night scythes were skimmers and you disembarked from them after damage. As for the "not being told when" to put them in reserve I could just as easily argue that as justification to do it before the crash and burn. It doesn't tell me when, so why not before? The unit was embarked, but if you follow the codex before rulebook rule, wouldn't you have to shunt them to reserve before crash and burn? The codex does take precedence after all.

Your last sentence is correct. Per Pg 7s Basic Versus Advanced rule. However, the Necron Codex only comes into conflict with step five of Crash and Burn, following the sentences in their sequential order. Step five is the disembark from the destroyed vehicle. While I understand you would want to move the unit to reserves when the vehicle is destroyed, the Necron codex tells us to move them to reserves -instead- of disembarking the unit; Which is step five of the Crash and Burn rules.

The Invasion Beams may only be used in the movement phase. If your vehicle was destroyed, then we are in the shooting phase and youve missed your opportunity to remove your unit. If its been destroyed in the movement phase on account of something silly such as an ork battlewagon grabbin' claw or the like, you would still get to disembark your unit before the Night Scythe was destroyed because its your turn.

vongoob wrote:
Crash and burn doesn't say disembark, it says place[u] survivors. Not even speaking the same language, as pertains to rule mechanics. I stick to my previous statement on the disembarkation reference being a redundant restriction (telling you that you cannot do something you cannot do anyway) rather then a requirement for the rule to function. otherwise, if you really want to get RAW hardcore, since the survivors are "placed" the rule would never work and not even matter either way.

At this point, your grasping for straws. Read on page 79, bottom left paragraphs bolded header.

Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:So you're replacing the entirety of a section with a rule that only conflicts with part of the section.
Why is that again? Why are you replacing the whole thing when it only conflicts with part if it?
That's my issue with your stance.

Because i believe that entire section is one rule.

One can believe in fairies too. In YMDC, proof is required though. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have any.

Interceptor guns may fire in the movement phase(at the end of it to be precise), if your flyer has just arrived from reserve. it's plugged me several times now, so I am pretty sure on it lol.

Anyway, back to topic. I really can't explain any better how the "not allowed to disembark" in the night scythe codex entry is redundant, but I will try. Look at monopoly. go to jail. go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. most reasonable people would see the go to jail, and just go to jail. Not even need the rest of the wording to do it right. but TFG needs those extra few words. just as he needs the "do not disembark" in the necron codex. most reasonable people would read the rules without that and say "ok, you break my flyer i go in reserve" but TFG will look for ways around it when its inconvenient for him to go into reserve (ie. the invasion beams escape from an out of phase interceptor shot) disembarking doesn't have anything to do with the meat of the rule, it's just a safety net to prevent asshattery that has uncomfortably muddied what should have been an easy rule.

And while I am ranting about TFG stuff, lets look at the embarked thing in the first place. the only reason they even said the necrons count as embarked in the first place , is so TFG didn't try to use one portal to unload his entire army from one scythe. Anyway, that had nothing to do with the current object under discussion. carry on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xzerios wrote:
At this point, your grasping for straws. Read on page 79, bottom left paragraphs bolded header.

Rulebook is at the store, throw the words at me or don't expect a rebuttal for a few days.

Luide wrote:[One can believe in fairies too. In YMDC, proof is required though. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have any.

That is mildly insulting. I'll turn it around though: do you have any proof that it is 'not' one rule? if not? You are just about caught up with where this discussion has ended up...

vongoob wrote:Rulebook is at the store, throw the words at me or don't expect a rebuttal for a few days.

While its important for you to have a rule book to keep up with the discussion, I will delight you with whats on that page.

Pg 79 wrote:Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method: place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle's Access Points.

Those are the rules for disembarking from a transport vehicle; Well, the first sentence anyway as its relevant to my rebuttal.

Xzerios wrote:

vongoob wrote:Rulebook is at the store, throw the words at me or don't expect a rebuttal for a few days.

While its important for you to have a rule book to keep up with the discussion, I will delight you with whats on that page.

Pg 79 wrote:Placing Disembarked Models
When a unit disembarks, place the models one at a time, using the following method: place the first model in base contact with one of the vehicle's Access Points.

Those are the rules for disembarking from a transport vehicle; Well, the first sentence anyway as its relevant to my rebuttal.

Nifty. now wheres the relevance to what I said? you aren't allowed to disembark from a zooming flyer (outside of the invasion beams specifically outlined in the Necron FAQ, which restricts you to the movement phase) so you are restricted from doing something you are already restricted from doing. you still have to place the unit embarked in reserves when the transport is destroyed. the transport is destroyed before the model is removed, before you scatter the large blast. therefore, before crash and burn, the transport is empty. no strength 10s.

no part of disallowing disembarking tells you to not put the unit in reserve. the vehicle is destroyed, the units in reserve. codex before BRB, so in reserve before crash and burn.

Let me clarify that part right quick, it conflicts with the BRB, and gets exercised first, because it says when the vehicle is destroyed. not after the vehicle is destroyed. not after you have written a nice eulogy for the poor souls trapped inside.Right when it is destroyed, which is after the result is rolled or last hull point is removed.

Now, this is a discussion, i have said my piece, and shown my proof. If you haven't seen at least the possibility that this is how it was intended then I can't do anything else for you. But rest assured Mat Wards bouncing baby robots will be safe come FAQ update time lol.

You are incorrect. The Necron Codex does not come into conflict with the BRB ruling at 'when the flyer is destroyed'. If it did (which it does not), then you would be correct, but as it is the conflict only arises when you disembark the models. See the outline I have posted above as to where this conflict occurs in the rules for Crash and Burn.

Secondly, and more importantly, I agree with you in that a FAQ will fix this in favor of the embarked unit being removed before the hits.

haha, well at least we agree on what matters

but seriously, you can't see where even a little bit the rules come into conflict? it does say when its destroyed, and reading those paragraphs it states in the explodes block, and again in crash and burn that the model is destroyed before resolving any of the damages, which is when the trigger would kick in.

I hate to say it, but if you treat it like a magic the gathering stack ( I know, different game blah blah, but for the sake of argument) and resolve each thing, one at a time, refering to all applicable rules, each time you hit "the vehicle is destroyed" that would be a que to remove the necrons.

vehicle hit
jink fail
armor penetrated
roll on damage, get 6(for the sake of argument)
begin resolving explodes result
1. vehicle is destroyed
CODEX NECRON INTERUPTION< DONT ALLOW TROOPS TO DISEMBARK BUT MOVE THEM TO RESERVE!!!!
2. roll explosion distance
3. resolve explosion damage
4. remove model, place crater

Crash and burn adding onto, rather then replacing vehicle damage results makes it kind of weird where to start it, but since it requires the model to be in place to scatter the large blast, common sense says do it before remove model place crater. which is after they have been placed in reserve. therefore, no fellers inside to asplode!

1 Center the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6.

2 Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit.

3 The Flyer is then taken off the board.

4 If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armor saves allowed.

5 Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast markers final position and in unit coherency.

6 Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.

This is the order of operations. See part fours underlined. Part fives underlined is where the conflict arises due to the Necron codex. This stems mostly from the wording in the codex. I suspect the errata it receives will simply state "When the Night Scythe is destroyed, place the embarked crew onto ongoing reserves. When they arrive, they may not arrive by Deep Strike"

Also, in fifth edition, the way that its currently worded you would avoid the Strength 4, AP - hit. Not the case in 6th.

vongoob wrote:
Forgive me if maybe I am looking at this too simply, but look at the damage table for vehicles. read the first sentence a word at a time "the...(nothing) vehicle....(nothing rule contradictory yet) is.......(nothing)....Destroyed. (FULL STOP, what does the necron codex tell you to do when the vehicle is destroyed? Put your unit in reserve. you have met the codex conditions, continue with the rules. D6 explosion, followed by crash and burn. wait what? D6 explosion on flyers? that's right kiddies, it doesn't say crash and burn instead, it says after resolving vehicle damage table, then do crash and burn. So if its already destroyed from earlier damage, the 'crons (usually immortals in my case) have already been shunted to reserve for the previous damage table. And before you say "but it says to use the model to center the template!" it also tells you the vehicle is destroyed, then a few steps afterwards to remove the model. so model on table does not mean it isn't already destroyed.

It is just that simple really in my mind. From my experience so far everyone I know plays it that way.

I think the arguments have been stated as clearly as they're going to be. The thread has gone a bit circular and excessively hostile, so I'm locking it. Hopefully it's covered when they update the FAQ. Everyone be sure to email GW to make sure they do.