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.

It does matter since it explicitly demonstrates that the developers don't consistently use RAW to interpret rules.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It does matter since it explicitly demonstrates that the developers don't consistently use RAW to interpret rules.

As there is no faq to support you in this instance, or rules to support you I'm willing to say you're strecthing.

Yes, you can use that argument to try and determine RAI.
You cannot use it to determine RAW until it's FAQed.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It does matter since it explicitly demonstrates that the developers don't consistently use RAW to interpret rules.

They have *never* used RAW and RAW only. See myriad 5th ed examples (falchions, SitW inside vehicles, etc) for this

Does not alter that, sans a FAQ to the contrary, RAW is the best start you have in determining how a rule should play. And given there is NO RAI either way on this that is convincing, and you have a rule that works perfectly well, go with the written rules.

I don't think raw is the de facto solution as it has it's own assorted issues and sometimes is just flat out wrong. It may be preferred by some but that's as far as I'd go there. Sometimes it presents a good solution and that's when it's a good choice. Applying it blindly is fail IMO.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't think raw is the de facto solution as it has it's own assorted issues and sometimes is just flat out wrong. It may be preferred by some but that's as far as I'd go there. Sometimes it presents a good solution and that's when it's a good choice. Applying it blindly is fail IMO.

You're right lets play fluff. Everyone loses because the Space Marines win...

If you want to go make up your own house rules and play DozerHammer than by all means.

Until than though follow the rules and play 40k

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't think raw is the de facto solution as it has it's own assorted issues and sometimes is just flat out wrong. It may be preferred by some but that's as far as I'd go there. Sometimes it presents a good solution and that's when it's a good choice. Applying it blindly is fail IMO.

This isnt, as has been shown through this and other threads, following it blindly. You're ignoring that RAI shows the hits are still taken. Or not. Oh look, unclear RAI, who would have thought...

Play it as them not getting the hits if you like - but thats a houserule, currently. as long as your eyes are open to that fact thats good.

The arguement is pointless right til there is an FAQ, nearly all GT level tournament states that units in a NIght Scythe does not take a str 10 hit. If your store or players wants to make a house rule go for it, but if try to bring that arguement to a GT, good luck, you have more or a chance in getting a date with a model.

Sorry, the "houserule" is to play by the current rules as written? In what universe?

Oh, an care to cite some facts about the "nearly all" GT level tournaments that state this? Anything to back up your assertions, at all?

You have read the tenets, yes?

No one here has an official say. One word is just as good as another and even 1000 agree at the end of the day it doesn't change anything here. The important to take away from this is RAW has lost a lot of ground and according to the background they don't take the hit.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 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

correct, it simply isn't correct if you do it any other way till GW gives the the go ahead to not follow the rules.

 mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
nearly all GT level tournament states that units in a NIght Scythe does not take a str 10 hit

Citation needed.

Here are the following GT's that has stated,

Nova GT
Beaky Con GT
Fest of Blades GT
Comikaze Con GT
11th Company GT

these are some of the tournaments that has stated that units in Night Scythe does not a strg 10 hit when it is wreck or destoryed. Most GT tournanment tend to follow each other with ruling and FAQ. all you need to do is just search and read the rules.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.21.pdf
http://www.feastofblades.com/p/faqs.html

 mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
Here are the following GT's that has stated,

Nova GT
Beaky Con GT
Fest of Blades GT
Comikaze Con GT
11th Company GT

these are some of the tournaments that has stated that units in Night Scythe does not a strg 10 hit when it is wreck or destoryed. Most GT tournanment tend to follow each other with ruling and FAQ. all you need to do is just search and read the rules.

http://www.novaopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NOVA-FAQ-v6th.21.pdf
http://www.feastofblades.com/p/faqs.html

None of which matters here as the only allowed FAQs are the GW FAQs.

true your right and wrong at the sametime, you forget that there isn't any FAQ on the contents about the what happens to units in a NIght Scythe when it wrecks or is destoryed. So, to save time and any arugments. Judges from these tournaments stated what is RAI or RAW...who cares......carry on have a nice day

Fest of Blades FAQ:
"Can Anrakyr use his Mind of the Machine ability from a command barge? 
Yes."
Blatantly against the actual RAW. Not a suitable source for useful information.

Nova FAQ:
"Mindshackle Scarabs vs. Challenges – If the bearer of MSS is in base contact with one or more
enemy models at the start of the Fight sub-phase, randomize among them to determine which
model is affected at the same time as any challenges are issued. Should this model
immediately thereafter accept or deny a challenge and be moved out of base contact with the
prior models, carry out the MSS effects as they were rolled regardless. In subsequent Fight
Sub-phases, if the bearer of the MSS is still locked in the challenge, resolve all further MSS
rolls against the challenger (by rule, the only model considered to be in base contact)."

Goes against the actual rules - active player gets to decide order.

Nova FAQ, Tyranid section:
"Round fractions down for purposes of “Where is it?”"
The first Nid FAQ (1.0 - because 1.1 is current and the change is not magenta) changed Where is it? to Shrouded. There's no fraction to round.

Not really getting much support from these FAQs.

man are you blind or what check again, it clearly states it in their FAQ

this is straight from FOB

Necrons
1.Do you get to use “ever living,” even though the unit is removed by sweeping advance? 
Yes.
2.If my model is “removed from play,” can I still use ever living? 
No.
3.If my night scythe is destroyed do the models inside take a S10 hit?
No.
4.How much of a model must I move over to do a sweep attack? 
Any non-decorative part and any non-zero amount.
5.Can Anrakyr use his Mind of the Machine ability from a command barge? 
Yes.

Dozer - again, noone is saying hey are "official". However one side has the rules spot on, the other doesnt and just has very, very flaky "RAI" that isnt close to 100% reliable even in this.

mrblacksunshine - erm, rigeld was pointing out that the ruling in the FAQs are just plain wrong, so clinging to them as being "RAW" is just..wrong.

Claiming Anrakyr can use MitM while embarked when this clearly contradicts the actual rules doesnt help lend weight to the FAQ as being reliable.

May be the fact that there isn't any FAQ on Night Scythe's passengers taking the S10 hits because GW thought it was rather clear as day in RAW? People arguing that they do not take the hit seems to believe their wishful version is the absolute version, even though it's not stated anywhere officially, GT isn't official, if you want to run homebrew rules though, no one here will stop you.

Off topic: I also wish that open topped transport does S3 hits on passengers in an explosion, may be they forgot to add it into the BRB(just like that "RAI" part in necron's 5th ed codex that overruled the Crash and Burn... but I'd still play by the rules that I'll take S4 hits in an explosion. It doesn't matter if the fact may nerf the unit I want to play as compared to last ed, this ed is written this way, either play by RAW or make your own houserule, but this is the YMDC section, not the proposed rule section, so arguing that x and y houseruled this and that doesn't make any sense here.

Lastly, this is a necron player who apparently hates his own army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dozer - again, noone is saying hey are "official". However one side has the rules spot on, the other doesnt and just has very, very flaky "RAI" that isnt close to 100% reliable...

That's quite rich seeing your track record versus GW errata and FAQs.

 mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
man are you blind or what check again, it clearly states it in their FAQ

I'm not sure you understood my post. I'm well aware of what their FAQ says. I also noted that they are literally changing rules for no reason - the MitM question they have was covered in 5th (and disallowed), the basic rules haven't changed in 6th (meaning it's still disallowed) and they ignored that and said it is allowed.

GT's that ignore the rulebook shouldn't be used as a basis for your argument.

hello , not sure if this helps but i found this article from gw.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=2600086-gws&_requestid=179307

Paragraph from the article

The Night Scythe is a dedicated transport that can be taken by a unit of Necron Warriors, Necron Immortals, Deathmarks or Lychguard. In terms of transport capacity, it can carry 15 Necrons into battle, though you'd be hard-pressed to figure out where they would fit inside. That's because they're not inside the Night Scythe - they're waiting off-world, ready to be deployed through the wormhole portal mounted beneath the Night Scythe. This means that if the Night Scythe is destroyed in battle, the unit doesn't get destroyed with it, they simply arrive as reserves instead. Much like the Doom Scythe, the Night Scythe also has a tesla destructor, making it perfect for taking on enemy aircraft once it's delivered its squad into the heat of battle.

Erebus83 wrote:


The Night Scythe is a dedicated transport that can be taken by a unit of Necron Warriors, Necron Immortals, Deathmarks or Lychguard. In terms of transport capacity, it can carry 15 Necrons.

That's the rules part of it. 6th edition changed the explosion part on transports and the Necron FAQ has given no permission to ignore it. Take the hits, then go to reserves.

Yeah... doesn't help at all.

Erebus83 has it right.

Raw they take hits.

We don't know anything else one way or the other. Maybe an FAQ will help.

But RAI they don't. Stop trying to say RAW > RAI . It isn't.

I came across an argument someone made on this very topic. http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2012/09/6th-edition-rulings-necron-night-scythes-crash-and-burn-and-embarked-models/#more-993

He seems to use rules that the U.S. Supreme Court uses to determine rules, with supporting information in the form of cannons. It seems to me that if there is a problem with any of his interpretations, it would be with the supporting cannons he uses, if a conflict does exist.

If any of you see any conflicts with his logic, please feel free to share.

My personal view is that there is insufficient information to resolve this conflict RAW so until an FAQ addresses the situation, I just discuss it with any other players and arrive at an agreement one way or the other. I just want to get any arguments out of the way and get to the fun of playing the game.

Pdelski wrote:
I came across an argument someone made on this very topic. http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2012/09/6th-edition-rulings-necron-night-scythes-crash-and-burn-and-embarked-models/#more-993

He seems to use rules that the U.S. Supreme Court uses to determine rules, with supporting information in the form of cannons. It seems to me that if there is a problem with any of his interpretations, it would be with the supporting cannons he uses, if a conflict does exist.

If any of you see any conflicts with his logic, please feel free to share.

My personal view is that there is insufficient information to resolve this conflict RAW so until an FAQ addresses the situation, I just discuss it with any other players and arrive at an agreement one way or the other. I just want to get any arguments out of the way and get to the fun of playing the game.

He's wrong because he assumes the Night Scythe rule entirely replaces Crash and Burn instead of just the conflicting portion.
His argument that "If the unit is placed into reserve, none of the models, even the surviving ones, can be placed according to the Night Scythe’s rule. " fails either a) the models are placed - just placed in reserve or b) since step 5 references step 4 and step 4 is replaced, step 5 is now redundant and is "replaced" with nothing per the conflict resolution.

In short, theruleslawyers.com isn't always right.

Dozer Blades wrote:But RAI they don't. Stop trying to say RAW > RAI . It isn't.

And when did GW tell you what they intended the rule to be? Then quit trying to pass off your opinion on what the rule should be as anything else.