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.

I would like to point out that in
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/459610.page
we were getting most of the same arguments. Its likely to end the same way. That is, not at all.

Tye_Informer wrote:

The way the codex entry for Night Scythe worked in 5th edition replaced the entire Destroyed effect on passengers with the Codex version (i.e. no pinning test, no models destroyed because they can't disembark, etc.)

Destroyed – wrecked
The passengers must immediately disembark and then
take a Pinning test. Any models that cannot disembark
are destroyed. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

So, the "valid" allowance would be to do the same thing, replace the entire rule with the codex version, just like 5th Edition. Deciding to apply part of the new rule and then insert the old rule where you think they intended, is not an allowance, that is RAI or at least how someone thinks they intend the rule.

When a FAQ comes out about this, we will know what was intended. Until then, we either throw out the codex rule or we use it in place of the BRB rule.

Not true whatsoever.

In 5th edition, the Disembark happened before anything else - and since the disembark was replaced with the NS rule, they went into reserve.
In 6th, there's things that happen before the models are placed. The NS rule only gives permission to replace the disembark, not the entire rule.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I would like to point out that in
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/459610.page
we were getting most of the same arguments. Its likely to end the same way. That is, not at all.

higher brain functions, I approve of this comment

Simply put guys the new rule book for 6th seems pretty iron clad on this; but if you want to go the way of the Eldar and dispute meanings of words and rulings of a codex with no FAQ but a less than 6 month old big rule book feel free, i just think it's a waste of time.

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th edition, the Disembark happened before anything else - and since the disembark was replaced with the NS rule, they went into reserve.
In 6th, there's things that happen before the models are placed. The NS rule only gives permission to replace the disembark, not the entire rule.

So in 5th, they went into reserve and took a pinning test? No, the whole rule was replaced.

In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

Simply put guys the new rule book for 6th seems pretty iron clad on this; but if you want to go the way of the Eldar and dispute meanings of words and rulings of a codex with no FAQ but a less than 6 month old big rule book feel free, i just think it's a waste of time.

The problem with some comments that say "iron clad", is they don't say what the "iron clad" rule is. I take it that you are saying that the "iron clad" rule is the Night Scythe rule doesn't apply at all, since it refers to terminology for normal transports in 5th edition and the Night Scythe is now a Flyer transport in 6th Edition.

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Tye_Informer wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In 5th edition, the Disembark happened before anything else - and since the disembark was replaced with the NS rule, they went into reserve.
In 6th, there's things that happen before the models are placed. The NS rule only gives permission to replace the disembark, not the entire rule.

So in 5th, they went into reserve and took a pinning test? No, the whole rule was replaced.

Right - you replaced the sentence. Meaning they didn't take a pinning test. Replacing the entire rule would mean you don't replace the vehicle with a wreck, which is obviously wrong.

In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Right - replace the disembark (which I'm giving allowance to mean placed unit - I've said that a few times) and apply the rule. So you agree that they take the hits?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Please quote the rule and bold the word disembark.

Tye_Informer wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Please quote the rule and bold the word disembark.

Aww I'm sorry it's only implied that they disembarked, shucks can't bold it for you.

However, if the flyer was also stunned you imply they get around this?

Q: If passengers disembark from a Transport that has suffered a
Shaken or Stunned result, do they still suffer these effects in their
next Shooting phase? (p80)
A: Yes.

and this

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:


In 6th, replace the disembark (hint: there isn't one) and apply the rule.

Hint, there is.

Please quote the rule and bold the word disembark.

Aww I'm sorry it's only implied that they disembarked, shucks can't bold it for you.

That's my point, they don't disembark, so you either replace the passenger effect with the one from the Codex (like we did in 5th edition) or you don't use it at all. Inserting the Codex rule in where you think it should go based on an implied disembark is RAI, not RAW.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

However, if the flyer was also stunned you imply they get around this?

Q: If passengers disembark from a Transport that has suffered a
Shaken or Stunned result, do they still suffer these effects in their
next Shooting phase? (p80)
A: Yes.

and this

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle.

You must have me confused with someone else. I never said or implied that a unit disembarking from a Night Scythe using Invasion Beams (the only way to disembark from a Zooming Night Scythe, and Night Scythes can only Zoom) do not have to follow the disembark rules for transports. I don't see any rule that says they are allowed to ignore these 2 rules so I would have to see a real good argument that they do. In regards to this, I am on the "These 2 rules apply to units disembarking from a Night Scythe" camp.

My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

Aycee

Aycee71 wrote:
My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

Aycee

I see it as they take their Str10 hits, than go into reserve mainly at some point models have to disembark. The only place seemingly fit is the "place"

Aycee71 wrote:
My whole point is that claiming that they take the S10 hits is just as much an interpretation of rules as well as claiming that they don't take the S10 hits. When you look at all the rules you cannot make a clear case in either direction. However, if you look at subsequent rules and how they interact, it breaks less rules by placing the Necrons in reserve. There is no clear case of RAW. It is all RAI.

No, it doesn't.

To make them take the hits all you have to do is go with the fact that placing models is the same as disembarking. We have clues for that - the exploded vehicle FAQ being the best one.

Page 426 – The Game Summary, Transport Vehicles and Their
Passengers, Explodes (Other Effects).
Change the entry to read “The unit takes a number of Strength
4 AP – hits equal to the number of models in the unit.
Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be
and must take a Pinning test.”

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

Destroyed references both Explodes! and Wrecked results. Here we have "passengers are placed" equated with disembarking.

To make them go straight to reserve you must ignore a sentence, then apply the NS rule.


One of these methods ignores nothing and has rules support. The other ignores a sentence for no reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

To make them take the hits all you have to do is go with the fact that placing models is the same as disembarking. We have clues for that - the exploded vehicle FAQ being the best one.

Page 426 – The Game Summary, Transport Vehicles and Their
Passengers, Explodes (Other Effects).
Change the entry to read “The unit takes a number of Strength
4 AP – hits equal to the number of models in the unit.
Surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be
and must take a Pinning test.”

Q: If a unit disembarks from a destroyed vehicle during the enemy
turn, can it Charge in the Assault phase of its own turn? (p80)
A: No, unless the vehicle in question was an Assault Vehicle

Destroyed references both Explodes! and Wrecked results. Here we have "passengers are placed" equated with disembarking.

Thank you for proving my point. Due to a lack of a clear indication of rules you have made assumptions. I highlighted the key words to prove that in your argument. RAW the rules don't work and so you had to use clues and try to equate one rule with another for your version of RAI.

Aycee

Aycee71 wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. Due to a lack of a clear indication of rules you have made assumptions. I highlighted the key words to prove that in your argument. RAW the rules don't work and so you had to use clues and try to equate one rule with another for your version of RAI.

I didn't equate the two. GW did.
I'm not making assumptions. I'm reading rules. I'm also not ignoring anything when I show how the rules work. Your interpretation absolutely does.

Ok necron codex is the only codex which explains what happens to thier flyers when there is a wrecked or destroyed result in the codex. All other flyers use the BRB, since they have nothing written in their codex to explain it. Two sets of rules, codex trumps BRB.pg 7

Theres mUddy watter for ya Codex>BrB.
Though im hoping as much as everyone else that the faq clears it up. SOON.

Lungpickle wrote:
Ok necron codex is the only codex which explains what happens to thier flyers when there is a wrecked or destroyed result in the codex. All other flyers use the BRB, since they have nothing written in their codex to explain it. Two sets of rules, codex trumps BRB.pg 7

Theres mUddy watter for ya Codex>BrB.
Though im hoping as much as everyone else that the faq clears it up. SOON.

Yes, the codex trumps the BRB. The models are not placed - they go into reserve.
Nothing in the codex addresses or conflicts with what happens before they go into reserve.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lungpickle wrote:
Ok necron codex is the only codex which explains what happens to thier flyers when there is a wrecked or destroyed result in the codex. All other flyers use the BRB, since they have nothing written in their codex to explain it. Two sets of rules, codex trumps BRB.pg 7

Theres mUddy watter for ya Codex>BrB.
Though im hoping as much as everyone else that the faq clears it up. SOON.

Yes, the codex trumps the BRB. The models are not placed - they go into reserve.
Nothing in the codex addresses or conflicts with what happens before they go into reserve.

Sounds like they take some painful hits.

The only case where a destroyed hit is explicitly stated to be replaced by codex's own is Ork's vehicles, ramshackle, I believe?

People who argue that "placed" =/= "disembarked", here's a little something to consider: using rigeld2's quotes from FAQ...

An unit embarked on a vehicle that has suffered an explode result will take the hit, and then survivors are placed where the vehicle used to be and must take a pinning test. However, if we're going by the "placed" =/= "disembarked" logic/interpretation, does this mean the unit can then assault on their own turn even if it's not an assault vehicle? I mean, the Q/A says disembark and not placed, obviously this means if you shot down the vehicle carrying the TH/SS termies or something, assuming they, for whatever reason, aren't on an assault vehicle, they can assault you as the survivors are placed, they didn't disembark, so they're not subjected to any disembarkation restriction.

See how crazy this sounds? Even under disembarkation in the rulebook, they used "placed"/"placing" when talking about the very act of placing models on the table from disembark, so did they invalidate their own rules by using a word that describes literally what you're doing...?

Also, here's what the codex says:

[...] 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).

... Are you now gonna argue that "enters reserve" =/= "disembark"? Also, I really recommend re-reading the BRB for Crash and Burn and note how survivors are placed is after the S10 hits, and the above codex quote about how they're embarked during the destruction of the vehicle, yet nothing about replacing the entire vehicle destroy/crash and burn result with the codex's version, unlike orks' vehicles.

Baronyu wrote:
The only case where a destroyed hit is explicitly stated to be replaced by codex's own is Ork's vehicles, ramshackle, I believe?

People who argue that "placed" =/= "disembarked", here's a little something to consider: using rigeld2's quotes from FAQ...

An unit embarked on a vehicle that has suffered an explode result will take the hit, and then survivors are placed where the vehicle used to be and must take a pinning test. However, if we're going by the "placed" =/= "disembarked" logic/interpretation, does this mean the unit can then assault on their own turn even if it's not an assault vehicle? I mean, the Q/A says disembark and not placed, obviously this means if you shot down the vehicle carrying the TH/SS termies or something, assuming they, for whatever reason, aren't on an assault vehicle, they can assault you as the survivors are placed, they didn't disembark, so they're not subjected to any disembarkation restriction.

See how crazy this sounds? Even under disembarkation in the rulebook, they used "placed"/"placing" when talking about the very act of placing models on the table from disembark, so did they invalidate their own rules by using a word that describes literally what you're doing...?

Also, here's what the codex says:

[...] 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).

... Are you now gonna argue that "enters reserve" =/= "disembark"? Also, I really recommend re-reading the BRB for Crash and Burn and note how survivors are placed is after the S10 hits, and the above codex quote about how they're embarked during the destruction of the vehicle, yet nothing about replacing the entire vehicle destroy/crash and burn result with the codex's version, unlike orks' vehicles.

Affirmative, No matter what you are arguing for a few things are clear that we can all agree upon. I will highlight these and rather than have crons form their own opinions I will ask you to please make your statement in the form of my question If you can answer you at least have a debate-able topic.

a) Necron Nightscythes are flyers
b) Necron Nightscythes are transports
c) A Necron player must declare a unit embarked in a transport if it wishes to be embarked at the start of the game.

so in order to try and make sense of the grabbled statements I will ask anyone who thinks the necron avoid this damage to please answer these questions.

#1) Vendettas & Storm Ravens will take the Crash and burn strength 10 hits, can you please tell us what page & rule specifically allows your Night Scythe to avoid that effect?
#2) Through-out the BRB the entries and terms for "Disembark" are used constantly for vehicles; flyers are included. If crash and burn is something that is treated the same as disembark why do you think this was done despite the multiple references to disembark even within hovering mode flyers?
#3) The popular consensus is that the rule you say which allows necron to avoid this damage is no longer applicable with this edition.
#4) Night scythes use to be simply skimmer models, which references the typical terminology of disembark as opposed to the terminology used in the Crash or burn section why do you think this is?
#5) On pg 80 under Effects of Damage of Passengers under both entry of wrecked the terminology of disembark takes place immediately as opposed to the previous Crash and burn entry. YET WHEN YOU LOOK AT EXPLODES THE RULES READ THAT THE UNIT IS AGAIN DAMAGED AND THE TERMINOLOGY OF "DISEMBARK" ISN'T USE AGAIN. Do you still honestly think this is a coincidence?

Thank you for your time and I highly suggest pro necron players take a look at how anything using the terminology disembark are being used wrong, a wreck you can disembark out of but an explosion is simply placed models inside the wreckage.

In the event of the flyer crash smash creating a large blast marker where they are told to BE PLACED within 3" of that marker. This is to represent the scattered survivors who got lucky. In short were your rules still equipped for skimmers rather than transports it would see more use than it does today. Even then not really an explodes result will cause them to not be withdrawn and held in reserves. Disembarking is a very well outlined rule... please learn it and when it applies.

Also, I think since our pro-necron players have yet to answer at all since this post, we might have at last reached a conclusion. The terminology of "place models" isn't the same as "disembark". the BRB makes the terminology difference many times in the book.

Examples of damage to passengers states

wrecked they say to disembark 3 inches rather than 6

Explodes they say to place.

Crash and burn which is the result that happens due to being wreck or destroyed and maintaining a flyer stat they say to place rather than disembark. regardless of even this clarification the scripting of crash and burn states the occupants inside are dealt strength 10, no armor save hits before the ability to even place or disembark becomes an issue. I agree that any survivors could possibly be thrown back into reserves as my statement about the difference of these two things isn't black and white but is sure seems that way and I do a lot of TOing at my leagues and store. So until GW does something I would say RAW actually handles this, still i wouldn't be opposed to someone bringing it up with their enemy and saying "Would you have a problem with me playing this way?"

That being said, i would be worried that person would mislead the enemy that the option many of us now see a rules correlation with wouldn't even be suggested at the truth. Either way I assume many necron players will try and pull a fast one on these rules still but it was nice to make a final line statement about it and why it will not be allowed when i see it used.

 Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:
Also, I think since our pro-necron players have yet to answer at all since this post, we might have at last reached a conclusion. The terminology of "place models" isn't the same as "disembark". the BRB makes the terminology difference many times in the book.

Examples of damage to passengers states

wrecked they say to disembark 3 inches rather than 6

Explodes they say to place.

Crash and burn which is the result that happens due to being wreck or destroyed and maintaining a flyer stat they say to place rather than disembark. regardless of even this clarification the scripting of crash and burn states the occupants inside are dealt strength 10, no armor save hits before the ability to even place or disembark becomes an issue. I agree that any survivors could possibly be thrown back into reserves as my statement about the difference of these two things isn't black and white but is sure seems that way and I do a lot of TOing at my leagues and store. So until GW does something I would say RAW actually handles this, still i wouldn't be opposed to someone bringing it up with their enemy and saying "Would you have a problem with me playing this way?"

That being said, i would be worried that person would mislead the enemy that the option many of us now see a rules correlation with wouldn't even be suggested at the truth. Either way I assume many necron players will try and pull a fast one on these rules still but it was nice to make a final line statement about it and why it will not be allowed when i see it used.

As an aside point here, to the wording of "place" vs "disembark" when an explosion occurs --

To 'disembark' by the game mechanics in 6th edition, the model must be placed within base contact of the access point, then move no more than the 3" (or 6") away from the vehicle. When said vehicle is removed from play due to an "explosion" result, there is no access point for the model to make contact with and disembark. That is why they are simply "placed" in the crater afterwards. To assert that they have not disembarked, and therefore suffer no ill results of having their transport destroyed, is a pure example of rules lawyering for advantage. The mechanic keyword is different solely because it *needs* to be, otherwise the game breaks.

Just my quick input. Again, RAW, necron flyer riders take the s10 hits until an FAQ would deem otherwise. Order of Operations here shows clearly when the hits are resolved.

Hahah the Necron hate is strong here!

Rule lawyering makes people think that Necrons step through worm holes just to taste the delicious burning flames of their exploding fliers and then magically appear somewhere else after doing so....

An entire forum or magic bullet believers.

Or, just possibly, thats what the rules say.

Protip: claiming people are arguing due to X hate is likely to result in your "contribution" to the thread being ignored as irrelevant. For all you know there are necron players arguing for the hits (there are, or at least 1, but dont let facts get in the way of your rant)

 Shinkaze wrote:
Hahah the Necron hate is strong here!

Rule lawyering makes people think that Necrons step through worm holes just to taste the delicious burning flames of their exploding fliers and then magically appear somewhere else after doing so....

An entire forum or magic bullet believers.

An exact case of nothing intelligently contributed to make your case simply insults. FYI I love the Necrons though their new version of fluff makes me groan a bit but nothing major i just enjoyed the mindless aspect more. That being said, i hold no hate for them one of my favorite enemies to fight and normally makes for great fights. But me and my friend alex both argee with the rules as written and even from his mouth he agrees that it simply isn't nessicary to maintain that the 5th edition codex's rules translate to this edition correctly at all nor should they now considering what other races face.

Shinaze, if you want to debate i'd love to have that with you but if you want to whine because we are saying something might be negatively impacting the necrons then i fear life must leave you very frustrated when it is trying to ruin your day as oppose to a group of people trying to figure out a rule which will be most widely accepted.

 Shinkaze wrote:
Hahah the Necron hate is strong here!

Rule lawyering makes people think that Necrons step through worm holes just to taste the delicious burning flames of their exploding fliers and then magically appear somewhere else after doing so....

An entire forum or magic bullet believers.

Assigning bias because you disagree isn't a great idea.
And you act like there is absolutely zero fluff supporting it. Hint - there is fluff supporting the models taking the hits.

1. Since units no longer disembark from an exploded vehicle (including crashed Flyers) you cannot go into Reserve instead of disembarking. This means they take the hits, and are placed on the table and will be able to roll for RP/EL at the end of the phase.

2. You treat being placed on the table as the disembarking. Therefore, you take the hits, the survivors go into reserve, and since there is no unit on the table you do not get to roll RP/EL (since there is no allowance to roll for units not in play).

Happyjew wrote:
1. Since units no longer disembark from an exploded vehicle (including crashed Flyers) you cannot go into Reserve instead of disembarking. This means they take the hits, and are placed on the table and will be able to roll for RP/EL at the end of the phase.

2. You treat being placed on the table as the disembarking. Therefore, you take the hits, the survivors go into reserve, and since there is no unit on the table you do not get to roll RP/EL (since there is no allowance to roll for units not in play).

exactly, I honestly could care less how they want to treat the 2nd half if they want to twist the rules to mean that... egh fine the survivors would be very minor at best and i could see it as a desperate chance to try and get soliders through a gate before it suddenly explodes

How many times in 6th edition has GW ignored RAW when releasing their errata and FAQs? I'm surprised they haven't already addressed this one.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
How many times in 6th edition has GW ignored RAW when releasing their errata and FAQs? I'm surprised they haven't already addressed this one.

Doesn't matter. Until they explicitly ignore it with a FAQ for this, until than they'll keep taking Str10 hits