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.

You've missed my point. I suppose that is what i get for posting their essence casually rather than literally relaying their exact contents in my prior post, so i'm going to correct that now.

Nightscythe rules
"...If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..."

'Crash and Burn' rules:
"...If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes... ...If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit... ...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."

Question 1:
are the above two single discrete rules, or a collection of more than that?

Question 1a:
If they are discrete rules, why would the first one only 'partially' supercede the latter one?

Question 1b:
If they are made up of multiple rules: who decides how it is broken down into seperate sub-rules? (where the lines are drawn within the greater rule itself)


Question 2:
What is the difference (rules-wise) between being destroyed, and being wrecked or exploding?

Question 3:
Is the trigger for the nightscythe rule: a) the vehicle being destroyed, or b) the embarked unit attempting to disembark?


It's likely i can come up with other unanswered questions as i have debated this issue quite thoroughly in the past, though i believe the above suffices to indicate my stance.

Because the Crash and Burn and Nightscythe rules only have one part that are in conflict.

Destroyed is not defined on the vehicle damage chart, but they describe Wrecked and Explodes in the vehicle damage section.

Presuming what you say is accurate: how do you define the exact part of the 'crash and burn' rules that the nightscythe rules overwrite, so to speak?

The rules are in conflict, and you appear to hold with the idea that there are several smaller rules within the 'crash and burn' ruleset as a whole. So then, who decides what parts of the crash and burn rules are themselves discrete rules, at least one of which would be superceded by the nightscythe ones?

But the two rules are not in conflict as a whole, only parts of the rule.

We should strive to break no rule, so we must apply as much of both rules as we possibly can.

I agree, except for the part where you take it as given that you have implicit permission to only replace 'part' of a given rule with 'part' of another.

The main rulebook has the following text in it:
"'Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."

It then goes on to define 'advanced' as representing both general vs specific rules and those found in a codex vs the BRB.

What it does not do here or anywhere else that i've found however, is define what constitutes a discrete rule in and of itself.

The 'crash-and-burn' ruleset could just as easily represent one rule as it does a half-dozen of them. Who is to say? It's probably easiest to simply exchange the exact sentences that do not fit using the 'advanced vs basic' rubric, but is it unequivocally RAW?

Personally i feel it's logical to replace the entirety of the 'crash and burn' ruleset after the words "If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes..." with "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve..." but i freely admit such is a subjective judgement call rather than anything i can point to a specific passage in a rulebook and say: "Here. This states why this is unarguably true".

I've played the Take the hits even before I was playing Necrons. While it would be a nice boost for them not to, I cannot prove without a doubt that they do not. In the tourney's we hold I get asked the majority of the rules questions. So until I find solid proof I cannot overturn my previous judgement God I'm tired, hope that makes sense.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Again, please support your argument that the RAW is a "houserule" or retract it. Now.

"Now" eh? heh.

I'd like to chime in that in order to support the 'takes the hits and then goes into reserves' position, you need to chop up the 'crash and burn' and the nightscythes own rules into some pretty arbitrary segments and put them a timeline, as 'put the models in reserves' from the latter rule does undeniably conflict with 'place the survivers on the table' of the former one.

Who is to say where those lines should officially be drawn? That is just one of the points of contention. What I simply cannot abide is folk presuming they know the only interpretation that is possible, and thefore have the right to 'demand' anything from anyone. This simply isn't true, and to argue from that perspective is doing everyone who reads it a disservice.

I agree and it's also rude. The results of the poll show there is an equal split in opinion and we know from experience that often GW does not always use RAW to answer questions. So on the basis of the latter note we know that the RAW interpretation does not always win out over RAI.

Assuming you're correct on what's intended. As proven, fluff goes both ways so I'm interested to know why you assert the intent is that they take no hits.

That's fine.

No, you made a statement that the RAW was a houserule. Thus requiruing that you have an actual argument otherwise.

You dont, therefore you have again broken the tenets of this forum.

Neo - crash and burn has a number of rules

nosferatu wrote: Neo - crash and burn has a number of rules

I'd agree, that is a likely interpretation. But who is to say how many there are, and more importantly where each individual one begins and ends definitively? In order for your interpretation to work, you'd need to have specific indication of what sub-rules of the crash and burn ruleset are replaced by the nightscythe ones and which stay the same.

I'm pretty sure the above is impossible short of GW FAQing it one way or the other.

It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

not 'things'. Rules.

You are supposed to replace any conflicting rules. The problem is as i've stated is there isn't really a good clarification of what constitutes a specific 'rule'; it could just as easily represent the entire 'crash and burn' paragraph as it does the very last sentence in that text. (or anything in between for that matter).

It's 'logical' to parse it based on the information content; typically on a 'per sentence' or 'per paragraph' basis, but it is not and cannot be 'RAW' when it is never clearly defined.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

they do enter reserve ... and are then removed as casualties as they are not placed .... zero conflict

 Neorealist wrote:
not 'things'
It's 'logical' to parse it based on the information content; typically on a 'per sentence' or 'per paragraph' basis, but it is not and cannot be 'RAW' when it is never clearly defined.

which is what I'm showing i hope

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

they do enter reserve ... and are then removed as casualties as they are not placed .... zero conflict

No, it's a conflict. The unit goes in to reserve. Find permission to remove as a casualty a model in reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tri wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It's not impossible.
You only replace the things that conflict.

for example models not being place are removed as casualty? after all they "instead enter reserve" and are not placed .... they should all be removed as casualties by raw

No, the "not placed are removed as casualties" conflicts with entering reserve, and codex wins.

they do enter reserve ... and are then removed as casualties as they are not placed .... zero conflict

No, it's a conflict. The unit goes in to reserve. Find permission to remove as a casualty a model in reserve.

Interesting but pointless there are many things that can keep going as a model leaves the field. For example if a unit enter a transport after being hit (and set on fire) by a soul blaze weapon would it stop? No ... if that vehicle was a flyer and left the field would it stop? No. Are you also saying a Marlock needs to be on the table to regenerate wounds? No just needs to be alive at the start of the turn.

You do not need permission to do something that's written in the rules ... it happens. You need permission to ignore something written in the rules. In this case the model must take a str10, must enter reserve and, since not placed they must be removed as casualties.

They are placed. They're placed in reserve.
And yes, some things do continue to work in Reserves.
Soul Blaze isn't one of them - there's no reminder counter in play, there's no permission to wound models not in play.

What about pinning and morale checks? How do you handle that - sweep it under the carpet too?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What about pinning and morale checks? How do you handle that - sweep it under the carpet too?

You're still inside when you take the hits aren't you?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
What about pinning and morale checks? How do you handle that - sweep it under the carpet too?

Flying transport explosions don't Pin.
There's nothing saying Morale checks wouldn't be caused as normal.

It's almost like we've gone over this bef-- Oh Wait! We have!

rigeld2 wrote:
They are placed. They're placed in reserve.
And yes, some things do continue to work in Reserves.
Soul Blaze isn't one of them - there's no reminder counter in play, there's no permission to wound models not in play.

You are told to do something ... that is permission. You are not doing something you are told to do. Where is you permission to ignore rules?

and entering reserves is not being placed in reserves. that is different wording. In fact no models are placed in reserve they all enter reserve or start in reserve.

You're told to resolve Soul Blaze on units with reminder counters. That unit isn't in play, so neither is its counter.

You should start a thread about that if you want to however, instead of derailing this one further.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're told to resolve Soul Blaze on units with reminder counters. That unit isn't in play, so neither is its counter.

You should start a thread about that if you want to however, instead of derailing this one further.

You have models on the board or waiting in reserve (oh and dead models but they normally don't come back, in this edition any way). I've never read about models being in play ... please post a page number for this rule

Models must be "in play" or not. If they aren't, you could not remove them from play.

My last post referring to this off topic discussion. Feel free to "win" if you want.

rigeld2 wrote:
Models must be "in play" or not. If they aren't, you could not remove them from play.

My last post referring to this off topic discussion. Feel free to "win" if you want.

So if a model cannot enter from reserves it cannot be in play. yet we must remove it from play even thought it isn't. unless reserve is part of play. In which case models in reserve are in play and can be removed from play.

Feel free to "win" if you want.

It's not about winning its about pointing that multiple parts of this don't work together.

1) All models take Str10 hit
2) Models are placed within 3" of the final blast
3) models that cannot be placed are removed

1) All models take Str10 hit
2) Models enter reserve
3) models that cannot be placed are removed

Lets see the page #. Okay?

The page number where it tells you to rpelace rules that conflict? Been there.

Please show the page number where you are allowed to ignore rules that do not conflict.

When you cannot, as you repeatedly fail to actually follow the tenets of this forum, you will have conceded. Again.

Oh, and even fluff doesnt back your argument up, before you try that "argument" again....

Merry Christmas.