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.

From a practical point of view I'd really like to see someone actually fit any of the following into a Night Scythe:

15 Immortals
6 Wraiths and 2 Destroyer Lords

You can't do it. That should tell you something right there.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Punisher wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Thats not what I said in relation to the night scythe it's that the timing could occur anytime after the vehicle is downed cause it doesn't state anymore so it could happen immediately or after the str10 hits depending on different perspectives. They would still go into reserves or the game would hang waiting, forever in your suggestion, for the nightscythe rule to occur.

No, really the rule would do nothing. There's no waiting or the Night Scythe rule to happen because the trigger (destroyed and disembarking) can never happen.

Except that the disembarking is not a prerequisite to go into reserve. The nightscythe being destroyed is. The order of operations remains the same as it was in 5th. Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to its codex, necrons go into reserve. Now it's Nightscythe is destroyed, necrons cannot disembark due to codex and BRB not have a disembark option here, necrons go into reserve. The only difference is that now there is no regular unit disembarking time so then it can easily be argued that once the nightscythe is destroyed the crons go into reserve without waiting for any other factors to occur.

Only if you read out of context. Or you live in a fantasy world made of lollipops and tootsie rolls. If it's the latter please let me know how to get there. As it is Place is ='s to disembark otherwise you break the rules according to the faqs

Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
From a practical point of view I'd really like to see someone actually fit any of the following into a Night Scythe:

15 Immortals
6 Wraiths and 2 Destroyer Lords

You can't do it. That should tell you something right there.

That according to the rules they are embarked, and they disembark, just like normal transport vehicle

Have you tried to fit 10 marines into a rhino, with their backpacks on? Does this mean marines are no longer "inside" a rhino? Or, perhaps, is your argument very, very poor bordering on the ludicrous, and is ignoring the tenets of this forum AGAIN.

So, RAI they take the hits, RAW they take the hits... what legs do you have left to stand on again?

You can actually fit 10 Marines in a rhino - sure it's a bit tight but definitely doable.

Nope, been tried. You cannot fit 10 marines without removing their power packs, and even then it involves them being contorted oddly

So, again, what relevance does your sugestion have? None

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You can actually fit 10 Marines in a rhino - sure it's a bit tight but definitely doable.

Good to know people are still trying to argue this...

Sorry but anyone who plays to play necron will either have to accept this ruling or enjoy their status as " TFG " within the group of their peers who have read these rules, and agreed with nearly all TO's in official and unofficial GW capacity. If an FAQ is released to clarify the use of your old rule from 5th edition the RAW crowd which are the ones who actually play this game more than just recreational will be able to accept your arguement with no issue. But until then, this is just like the Tau Codex entries before the FAQs in the past.

Punisher wrote:
Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.

If you don't equate the result you end up with silly interpretations. The context of the FAQs I quoted shows that GW equates the results. Using context to determine that does not mean its RAI.

And you absolutely cannot go into reserve if you don't disembark. See the word "instead"? That shows that you must have the option to do the first thing to be able to do the second. There's two prerequisites to going to Reserve. The first is destruction of the vehicle, the second is disembarking. What you're trying to do is replace multiple rules with a single rule. That's not how conflict resolution works.

Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.


Read up on some FAQ's than. As the BGB will often say, disembark the faq will call it placed and vice-versa. They interchange the word quite often. By that it is certainly RAW.

The FAQs do, however, equate the two terms.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, been tried. You cannot fit 10 marines without removing their power packs, and even then it involves them being contorted oddly

So, again, what relevance does your sugestion have? None

Is it just me or do you like being arrogant as hell? I mean take it easy dude... even Im not that rude... if you wanna get technical you're violating forum policy just by being condescending... believe me I know from our last few spats...

In case you hadnt noticed he was trying to lighten the atmosphere to be funny... deep breaths buddy, deep breaths


Unfortunately, as I cant believe Im saying this, but RAW is correct in that the models would be hit by the strength 10 ap 2... I consider it cheese d@%kery in the worst sense as its obvious what the intent was, resiliency, but alas... all the kings horses and all the kings men cant disprove this gooftastically written rule.

Actually it was another post which failed to add to the discussion - it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Again, "intent" is to avoid it? BL book says they dont, versus your intent of...?

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I consider it cheese d@%kery in the worst sense as its obvious what the intent was

I disagree that it's obvious. It's been pointed out a few times that the fluff supports both ways of intent (both taking the hits and not).

So by RAI you can easily make a case they don't take a hit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually it was another post which failed to add to the discussion - it was irrelevant to the matter at hand.

This is your opinion good Sir, I thought it was well placed and hilarious... have you ever actually tried to fit necrons inside of the nightscythe? it can be done... in pieces, but it can be done lol

I realize this which is why I didnt use this as the basis for more statement... you could by matt ward's growth on his neck and still not be able to know/argue his intent. That said, it is very "derpy" from a fan boy POV when the most technologically advanced race in the universe falls prey to their own designs via getting killed from crashing in a vehicle they arent actually inside of... best leave that to the orks, they love blowing themselves up.

I am agreeing that the models, as described by RAW which cant be argued, would be mostly obliterated... unless your opponents dice rolls suck... best take a rez orb and a phase shifter on the lord/overlord just incase

 Dozer Blades wrote:
So by RAI you can easily make a case they don't take a hit.

How's that? Beings placed is used as disembark all through the FAQ's? That just means RAW/RAI they're taking hits, unless you can read Ward's mind. Although if you could do that I'd ask what his next brainchild would be.

There actually seems to be a general consensus with only a few voices not agreeing. Or at least that's what it seems when threads devolve into side-shows and name-calling.
Aka, time for a thread closin'?

I'd say so Buffalo... this goose is cooked

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I'd say so Buffalo... this goose is cooked

It's not even the first goose of the season, but it's all good. When it's done right Goose is amazing!!

rigeld2 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.

If you don't equate the result you end up with silly interpretations. The context of the FAQs I quoted shows that GW equates the results. Using context to determine that does not mean its RAI.

And you absolutely cannot go into reserve if you don't disembark. See the word "instead"? That shows that you must have the option to do the first thing to be able to do the second. There's two prerequisites to going to Reserve. The first is destruction of the vehicle, the second is disembarking. What you're trying to do is replace multiple rules with a single rule. That's not how conflict resolution works.

Not replacing any rules the necrons are unable to disembark because that's what the codex says, they can't disembark is apart of the codex. It doesn't matter if disembarking doesn't exist in the BRB here they still can't do it and they never could. Nothing has changed here the BRB has adopted for flyers that no unit can disembark from a destroyed flyer from the codex necrons, what other flyers didn't adopt was the ability to be placed safely in reserves, thus other flying transports suffer a str10 hit because they don't have the NS's special rule.

Big Mek Wurrzog wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You can actually fit 10 Marines in a rhino - sure it's a bit tight but definitely doable.

Good to know people are still trying to argue this...

Sorry but anyone who plays to play necron will either have to accept this ruling or enjoy their status as " TFG " within the group of their peers who have read these rules, and agreed with nearly all TO's in official and unofficial GW capacity. If an FAQ is released to clarify the use of your old rule from 5th edition the RAW crowd which are the ones who actually play this game more than just recreational will be able to accept your arguement with no issue. But until then, this is just like the Tau Codex entries before the FAQs in the past.

Right because the people who attend tournaments(which don't use your ruling) are the people who only play the game for recreation. And those who ignore the competitive environments ruling are clearly right. /sarcasm

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Actually placing doesn't equal disembark if you going by RAW, which is what everyone here seems to want to be so anal about. RAW disembark is not the same as placing, RAI they most certainly are but not RAW. If you refer to page 80 of the BRB it talks about a transport being wrecked and exploded, when it is wrecked the models disembark, when it explodes the models are placed. There is a clear distinction here as the rules show that you can only disembark from a vehicle if there is still a vehicle, which makes sense. Otherwise you are simple there,"placed", in its ruble/ruin/crater.


Read up on some FAQ's than. As the BGB will often say, disembark the faq will call it placed and vice-versa. They interchange the word quite often. By that it is certainly RAW.

You should re-read the FAQs never is placing used for disembark. You are getting what the RAW are confused with what the RAI are. Because RAW disembark =/= placed. Placed models are only mentioned in regards to exploded transports, whereas disembarked models models are referred to when it is a wrecked transport. The FAQ that you are referring to only talks about disembarked models and thus is only talking about models from a wrecked transport, those are RAW. Now if you want to interpret those rules differently from the RAW for your own RAI then your fine to do so, but don't think that's playing RAW because it's playing RAI.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The FAQs do, however, equate the two terms.

Never in the FAQ does disembark = placing.

INcorrect, as Rigeld showed a number of times. You must have missed them.

Dozer - no, you can "fluff" why they dont take a hit. You can also RAI they do take a hit, as a BL novel states they do. What support do you have? Oh, thats right...none.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
From a practical point of view I'd really like to see someone actually fit any of the following into a Night Scythe:

15 Immortals
6 Wraiths and 2 Destroyer Lords

You can't do it. That should tell you something right there.

haha the same way I can stick 10 SM in a rhino, melt them down.

IIRC you are able to stick 12 SM in a Chimera too, that is not happening as well.

Or just to drive the point home I have the old rhinos the really tiny guys.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher wrote:


Never in the FAQ does disembark = placing.

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.

PG 80 explodes results, placed is mentioned.

The FAQ represents destroyed vehicles not just wrecked vehicles.

Placed ='s Disembark

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Punisher wrote:


Never in the FAQ does disembark = placing.

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.

PG 80 explodes results, placed is mentioned.

The FAQ represents destroyed vehicles not just wrecked vehicles.

Placed ='s Disembark

No that`s talking about a unit that has disembarked from a destroyed vehicle. The only units that can come disembarked are from wrecked vehicles. It might be intended to include both wrecked and exploded but as it is written it only includes those models that have come from a wrecked transport. Not those from an exploded one. Since it specifically asks for disembarked models and the only disembarked models as per the rulebook are those coming from a wrecked transport. Destroyed might mean both wrecked and exploded, but disembark only means from a wrecked transport. So RAW a unit from a exploded transport can charge, now this is obviously not RAI but it is RAW.

Destroyed includes wrecked and explodes. The question includes both within the definition.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Destroyed includes wrecked and explodes. The question includes both within the definition.

Yes Destroyed vehicles includes both, but the question is talking about disembarked units from destroyed vehicles and disembarked units from the rulebook only come from wrecked vehicles. So as per RAW the FAQ is actually only talking about wrecked vehicles.

Basically a unit can only disembark from a wrecked transport, not a exploded one. So the Q is really only referring to wrecked vehicles and maybe some vehicle that does not currently exist that allows you to disembark from a exploded vehicle. That's how it reads per RAW.

Nope, the question includes both, because it considers destroyed as a whole. Stop using RAW when youre not actually reading the rules as writtne, you are changing the rules to mean something else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nope, the question includes both, because it considers destroyed as a whole. Stop using RAW when youre not actually reading the rules as writtne, you are changing the rules to mean something else.

No your making an assumption that they mean to includes units of the exploded transport but they never actually say that. They only ever use place models when talking about an exploded transport in the book. You are making an assumption that when they say disembarked units that they also mean models that are placed, because never in the BRB or anywhere else does it say that a unit that has been placed because of an explode result actually disembarked. Disembark in the BRB is only ever used to describe exiting a functioning transport or leaving a WRECKED transport. That is all that disembark covers.

You don't disembark from a smoked flyer guys. It's like one second you are zooming along in your pimp ride and the next you're suddenly sailing along ready to eat a dirt sandwich... Well unless you're a Necron of course because you're not in the flyer ever and the intent is crystal clear.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You don't disembark from a smoked flyer guys. It's like one second you are zooming along in your pimp ride and the next you're suddenly sailing along ready to eat a dirt sandwich... Well unless you're a Necron of course because you're not in the flyer ever and the intent is crystal clear.

Omg yes you are inside stop with the youre not embarked nonsense.

Fluff does not equal rules...

RAI says it is though. : )

 Dozer Blades wrote:
RAI says it is though. : )

Fluff you mean, fluff pretty much says Marines are invincible as well.