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.

 milkboy wrote:
My post was half in jest. I agree with col_impact that more needs to be considered besides exactly RAW.

No TO ever goes for strict RAW, do not fall for lies that easily. Every TO negotiates with his team what's going to be on the rules or not. One example is the Abyssal Staff. That's another issue than the NS, though. The Abyssal Staff indeed only needs clarification. The NS case is different because one rule explicitely disallows you to re-embark on the NS and there is not a single trace of rules allowance for you to re-embark or the NS to be an exception to the rule. That's a lot different from other cases where something is simply not clear - here, we got an explicit interdiction to do something. You need more than just a clarification, you need an explicit higher priority allowance.

The same restriction of embarking on a zooming flyer existed in 6th Ed. And because at that time, they had intended for re-embarkation, it was reflected in the FAQ. By losing that question, if the assumption is that when GW removes a previous permission it would no longer function in 7th, than the TO can disallow re-embarkation.

By following the same logic, if the FAQ previously gave permission to use the target's Leadership value for purposes of instant death with the Abyssal Staff, now that it is not present in 7th Ed, we must (because we are applying the same standards) also remove that permission in all 7th games. If not, it would be cherry picking of what is right, which brings us to a situation of trying to guess RAI.

Hypothetically, would you allow the Abyssal Staff to cause instant death on T4 models? If basing on my logic above, it should be as straightforward as disallowing re-embarkation.

 milkboy wrote:
The same restriction of embarking on a zooming flyer existed in 6th Ed. And because at that time, they had intended for re-embarkation, it was reflected in the FAQ. By losing that question, if the assumption is that when GW removes a previous permission it would no longer function in 7th, than the TO can disallow re-embarkation.

By following the same logic, if the FAQ previously gave permission to use the target's Leadership value for purposes of instant death with the Abyssal Staff, now that it is not present in 7th Ed, we must (because we are applying the same standards) also remove that permission in all 7th games. If not, it would be cherry picking of what is right, which brings us to a situation of trying to guess RAI.

Hypothetically, would you allow the Abyssal Staff to cause instant death on T4 models? If basing on my logic above, it should be as straightforward as disallowing re-embarkation.

Re-read my post above. The Abyssal Staff is a clarification issue. It wounded against LD instead of T and it needed to be clarified whether you would ID vs. LD or T. In the case of the NS, there was an entirely new rule introduced. It's a major difference.

Which is this entirely new rule that was introduced? I have read the thread but you brought up many points so I just want to be clear we are on the same page. Pun unintended of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I looked back at the few rules mentioned.

6th Ed rulebook
No permission to embark on zooming flyers

7th Ed rulebook
No permission to embark on zooming flyers

6th Ed FAQ Necrons
Nightscythe was changed to "Flyer" type
Access point was changed to "1 (the base of the model)"
FAQ stating they can embark

7th Ed FAQ Necrons
Nightscythe was changed to "Vehicle (Flyer)" type
Access point was changed to "1 (the base of the model)"

The only change I could see was loss of the FAQ clarification.
If there was a rule I missed which was introduced in 7th Ed, please let me know. I may have missed it.

Is this situation not similar to the Abyssal Staff? No rule changes or new rule introductions. Just loss of a clarification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just a word to the OP. Gavwil, if you have kept up with the discussion even though you are new, I would say give yourself a pat on the back. it's usually not that complicated.

Hmm, let me rephrase that so you see the point.

In some cases, rules may need a clarification. This is the case when two different interpretations are possible. Two valid and rules-based interpretations of a case. The Abyssal Staff is such a case. It says that it wounds against LD instead of T, but ID refers to usually wounding against T.

Two rulings are possible:

a) You only ID when your attack is twice the LD of the target.

b) You ID as usual, thus when your attack's S is at least twice the T of the target.

Both are valid interpretations as the rules hint at both interpretations. That's where a clarification is needed, so that all of us know which one is the one to use.

Now, the case is different with the NS. There aren't two possible interpreations of the rules:

a) The NS is a zooming flyer. You cannot re-embark.

There is no rule hinting at you being able to re-embark. You only have the explicit disallowance to re-embark. In order to be able to re-embark, you would have to change the rules. This has been done in the old FAQ where GW gave explicit permission to re-embark in the NS.

Everything up until this point is pure fact and not under debate

What is up to debate right now is what GW wants us to play:

a) GW did a sloppy job, as usual, and just deleted a big part of the FAQ but intended to still be able to re-embark.

b) GW did a sloppy job, as usual, and deleted a big part of the FAQ, willingly taking the ability to re-embark away.

c) GW doesn't know what they're doing.

Note that c) always applies.

The thing is: the most recent and therefore only valid FAQ lacks the special rule. If going by RAW, you may not re-embark in the NS. How it is played, however, and thus how you house-rule it to be allowed, is up to your local meta / TO to decide for the two different possibilities pointed out above.

Hope that made it a bit more clear. Kinda.

tl;dr: The permission to re-embark was not a clarification, but a new rule.

edit: He fixed it.

Thanks a lot for the heads-up rig

Actually I disagree because it is not mentioned that ID relies on what you are wounding against. The ID rule compared the Strength value of the attack vs the Toughness of the model. What you wound against has no impact on the conditions for ID because that is not stated in the ID rules. You statement the "ID refers to usually wounding against T" does not seem to be backed by the rule.

Therefore, without alluding to the 6th Ed FAQ, the interpretation is that as long as the S is twice of the T, instant death would occur. So there is also only one interpretation for Abyssal Staff.

So if you have to refer to the 6th Ed FAQ, so too must you for the NS case. Isn't that so?

As I said, there are two legimitate interpretations and you chose one. Nothing wrong with that.

I did not refer to the invalidated FAQ. There was a discussion on Dakka (and in our meta as well) long before the FAQ was released, shortly after the infos about the Necron codex leaked. Since it happened at the end of 2013, I guess you did not see it because you started out in February this year.

I still do to understand how it is a legitimate when it is not supported by any rules. Could you cite a rule that states Instant Death relies on the Ld value?

Sorry, but I am not going into this debate again. This is about the NS and not the Abyssal Staff. There have been multiple threads about about the issue and I don't think it's worth bringing up again.

Fair enough.

Since Sigvatr is unwilling to continue, perhaps someone who shares his view can explain it?

When I first heard that there was no re-embarkation in 7th, I didn't scrutinize it and just took it as it was. But after reading this thread and some reading up, I do not seem to find it agreeable.

So the question is, if there was no new rule change from 6th to 7th Ed, only a loss of a clarification, does that mean the clarification is now invalidated? The reason why the Abyssal Staff ties in with this discussion is because it is in the same situation as the NS.

There was a rule change in the 6th FAQ, as pointed out above. There was no clarification, as pointed out above.

I'll try to make it even simpler for you:

A clarification is needed when something is not clear. What about the re-embarking issue was not clear?

Which rule was it that changed? I really cannot find one that did. It would help if you can quote it.

I'm not trying to be rhetorical here. I just do not see a rule change in any of the books or faq.

The FAQ introduced the new rule...as pointed out above...

It changed the rule allowing you to embark into a zooming flyer, which the BRB forbids. IT was written as a FAQ but, like a number of their FAQs, is actually a rules change.

 milkboy wrote:
Fair enough.
Since Sigvatr is unwilling to continue, perhaps someone who shares his view can explain it?

Not really, but you can start a new thread on it?

So the question is, if there was no new rule change from 6th to 7th Ed, only a loss of a clarification, does that mean the clarification is now invalidated? The reason why the Abyssal Staff ties in with this discussion is because it is in the same situation as the NS.

One of my former posts gives a lot of information.
The situation is not exactly the same.

No FAQ: The Codex-wording of the NS-Access Point makes me think that units can embark on a Zooming NS.
FAQ1.4 (6th) removed those lines ánd added in a Q&A that specifically allows you to embark on them even though they are flying.
FAQ1.0 (7th) removed those lines and did not add anything to give them permission.

 milkboy wrote:

Since Sigvatr is unwilling to continue, perhaps someone who shares his view can explain it?.

Just to clarify, btw, I never said which of the two possibilities I'd use.

If I have a codex, the current FAQ, and the 7th edition rule book, there's no indication that anything can embark onto a Nightscythe. The rulebook is the only thing that mentions it at all, and it says that it cannot be done.

It really is very simple.

No previous versions of any of those things matter; they are not rules that apply to the current game.

Trying to apply such things is the same as trying to field Pariahs or the Nightbringer, since they were in previous versions of the Codex.

Nope I don't think Abyssal Staff gets a buff since this is what it says on the digital codex:

“Shroud of Despair: To Wound rolls from the abyssal staff’s shooting attacks are made against the target’s Leadership, rather than Toughness (even with regard to Instant Death). The abyssal staff’s shooting attack has no effect against vehicles.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Codex: Necrons (Enhanced Edition).” Games Workshop, 2012. iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/codex-necrons-enhanced-edition/id538370665?mt=11

Even though I agree that FAQ doesn't change how the rules work, It's kind of cool to think that the invasion beams are for disembarking.

next part is fluff:

I think that an ancient race like the Necrons work like the Egyptian bad guys from stargate and their beams work both ways ( I don't use night scythes )

Thanks for the input! This sadly adds to the confusion created by GW's weird way of handling FAQ - and sadly shows their high disinterest in creating and maintaining (!) a high quality set of rules.

 ashikenshin wrote:
Nope I don't think Abyssal Staff gets a buff since this is what it says on the digital codex:

“Shroud of Despair: To Wound rolls from the abyssal staff’s shooting attacks are made against the target’s Leadership, rather than Toughness (even with regard to Instant Death). The abyssal staff’s shooting attack has no effect against vehicles.”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Codex: Necrons (Enhanced Edition).” Games Workshop, 2012. iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/codex-necrons-enhanced-edition/id538370665?mt=11

Even though I agree that FAQ doesn't change how the rules work, It's kind of cool to think that the invasion beams are for disembarking.

next part is fluff:

I think that an ancient race like the Necrons work like the Egyptian bad guys from stargate and their beams work both ways ( I don't use night scythes )

This is very interesting. The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ, so from a strict RAW, the abyssal staff would still get the buff since the most current source misses the requisite clause "even with regard to Instant Death" (otherwise you don't have permission to handle ID differently). This just underscores the need to be active and common-sensical as a TO and not enslave oneself to strict RAW. Technically speaking, rules are not supposed to change with the dropping of a Q and A item.

The thing that is awkward about Sigvatr et al approach is that he is saying that GW is intentionally writing a rule in the case of the NS Q and A item that was dropped. GW don't see themselves as writing rules when the write Q and A items. Technically, the Q and A items are not supposed to have rule forming weight. And when you read the actual NS Q and A item that was dropped it reads like a clarification of rules given elsewhere. I see a strong RAI argument that the NS is intended by GW to allow re-embarking.

Yakface expressed this point eloquently

A) That 'change' was done via 'FAQ', which technically speaking is not supposed to be change but rather just a clarification of what the rules actually say…so somehow GW thought that the Invasion Beam rules in 6th edition were supposed to indicate that embarkation was fine (and nothing has changed on that front between 6th and 7th).

I am not saying that the Sigvatr approach is not a viable solution to this problem. I just think a better solution to the problem is for a TO to actively track the slop and actively manage the ruleset, since GW is failing to do so.

col_impact wrote:
The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ

No, it's not. The digital one has been updated more recently and therefore is "most current".

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ

No, it's not. The digital one has been updated more recently and therefore is "most current".

When was it updated and does it have a 7th edition digital FAQ applied?

col_impact wrote:

the Sigvatr approach

I want this term to be patented, it got a nice ring to it...."The Sigvatr Approach"!

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The most current Necron codex is the paper codex + 7th edition FAQ

No, it's not. The digital one has been updated more recently and therefore is "most current".

When was it updated and does it have a 7th edition digital FAQ applied?

After the 6th edition FAQ.
And likely not.

I'm not 100% sure on the last update date - https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/codex-necrons-enhanced-edition/id538370665?mt=11 someone running MacOS or Windows might be able to launch iTunes and see it. My iPad is way over there.

That was updated Nov 5th 2013

col_impact wrote:
I just think a better solution to the problem is for a TO to actively track the slop and actively manage the ruleset, since GW is failing to do so.

You really think the better solution is for someone to have a comprehensive memory of every ruling GW has made in the history of the game, memory because those rulings are no longer even available, instead of someone just reading the rules as they are currently printed?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I just think a better solution to the problem is for a TO to actively track the slop and actively manage the ruleset, since GW is failing to do so.

You really think the better solution is for someone to have a comprehensive memory of every ruling GW has made in the history of the game, memory because those rulings are no longer even available, instead of someone just reading the rules as they are currently printed?

Nope. You just track the slop as changes happen. Because as we know with GW slop will happen.

So what you want is unachievable then and requires time travel.

Ok, I guess I can be done with this thread.