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 think that,a ccording to the fluff (or maybe RAI) they woudl not take the hits and just go into reserver where they woudl have to either walk on form the edge or via a monolith.

i have run this past my gamign group and they are all fine with it....well, not fine but they agree on my interpretation.

 Praxiss wrote:
I would think that,a ccording to the fluff (or maybe RAI) they woudl not take the hits and just go into reserver where they woudl have to either walk on form the edge or via a monolith.

i have run this past my gamign group and they are all fine with it....well, not fine but they agree on my interpretation.

Strongly disagree.

You can argue either way on fluff based off the one book, where they get hit by the explosion.
When you add a timeline to it, they definitely take the hits.

I feel either way is a houserule atm though.

"But the fluff says they don't!" ignores the novel "Hammer and Anvil" where the "embarked" unit was destroyed when the Scythe was.

Fluff goes either way, RAW says they take the hits.

As said above, until FAQ its a house rule issue i fear.

I am curious, to the people who play that they take the hits. How do you deal with the ensuing morale check/pinning test?

Punisher wrote:
I am curious, to the people who play that they take the hits. How do you deal with the ensuing morale check/pinning test?

You can roll it if you want, but it's irrelevant - the unit is placed in Reserve per the Night Scythe rule.

Punisher wrote:
I am curious, to the people who play that they take the hits. How do you deal with the ensuing morale check/pinning test?

Hits are taken before the unit "disembarks" the vehicle. While embarked in a vehicle the unit is fearless.

I can't read another full thread of this...

Needless to say, I listen to 11th Company podcast for most of my 40k related information (awesome Podcast!). I used to COMPLETELY disagree with Neil's argument regarding this due to implementing an action that wasn't there.

However, I have started playing necrons now and my opinion has switched. I now COMPLETELY agree that they just get placed back into reserve.

 WingWong wrote:
However, I have started playing necrons now and my opinion has switched. I now COMPLETELY agree that they just get placed back into reserve.

That could explain a lot of it.

Fragile wrote:

 WingWong wrote:
However, I have started playing necrons now and my opinion has switched. I now COMPLETELY agree that they just get placed back into reserve.

That could explain a lot of it.

LOL too true.

I've thought that myself. However I cannot judge someone one way and judge myself differently. Being the local "rules" guy has pros and cons

Impressive, after 191 votes it is STILL 50/50!

And at 199 votes its 51/50. Wait what? How do we have over 100%?

Heresy. Time to call in an Exterminatus on the thread.

Cyclonic, Life eater Virus or something else?

 Tri wrote:

Still not denying RAW those models take a str 10 hit and get placed in reserve. Its just a little harsh since both the rules and fluff seem to think the models safely placed into reserve to make their own way on later.

How is making a severely undercosted flyer follow the same rules all other flying transports follow considered "harsh"?

I'm curious as to how many of the people that voted the unit should not take the hit actually DON'T play Necrons? Really, there is nothing RAW that even remotely supports the argument that the unit doesn't take the hit. There are many ways to justify the rule applying despite the fluff, such as the explosion of the flyer causes the portal to backfire and hit everybody in the pocket dimension with the power of the blast, or without the generator to keep the door open, the Necrons inside have to jump out ASAP to avoid being trapped and destroyed, thus the survivors in reserves are the ones that made it out.

For those that feel the unit shouldn't take the hit, do you also think the unit embarked on a Nightscythe doesn't suffer the results of Crew Shaken/Stunned either?

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Tri wrote:

Still not denying RAW those models take a str 10 hit and get placed in reserve. Its just a little harsh since both the rules and fluff seem to think the models safely placed into reserve to make their own way on later.

How is making a severely undercosted flyer follow the same rules all other flying transports follow considered "harsh"?

I'm curious as to how many of the people that voted the unit should not take the hit actually DON'T play Necrons? Really, there is nothing RAW that even remotely supports the argument that the unit doesn't take the hit. There are many ways to justify the rule applying despite the fluff, such as the explosion of the flyer causes the portal to backfire and hit everybody in the pocket dimension with the power of the blast, or without the generator to keep the door open, the Necrons inside have to jump out ASAP to avoid being trapped and destroyed, thus the survivors in reserves are the ones that made it out.

For those that feel the unit shouldn't take the hit, do you also think the unit embarked on a Nightscythe doesn't suffer the results of Crew Shaken/Stunned either?

I don't play necron i did vote they should take the hit (as i play by Raw unless A) its over powered/ broken B) I feel its unfair to my enemy)

Now why do you think that it is an under cost flyer? It costs the same as Valkyrie but cannot hover (so needed a rule to make possible to work as a transport), has worse weapons and has lower armour. It must zoom so it will "crash and burn" and the models with be placed in reserve with a str10 hit for being embarked (even though technically they aren't embarked they're through a worm hole).

It's a dedicated transport so it can be taken more. Its guns are not really worse. Invasion Beams are far better than hover to disembark/embark or Grav Chutes. And the Valk is typically regarded as undercosted already.

So we are now at 50/49. I'm assuming the1% are those that do not play.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/12/do-necrons-in-flyers-take-hits-or-not/

At least the Australian TOs have come to a consensus on this:

“There is absolutely no mention in either the codex rules or the Necron rules FAQ that the Necrons are not currently within the vehicle whilst “embarked”. (There is also a precedent set in the FAQ for models on board to be subject to vehicle effects such as having their shooting limited on the turn they disembark due to the speed of the vehicle that turn.) All that is stated is that they move to reserve rather than disembarking when the vehicle is destroyed.

As damage suffered by a unit in the case of a destroyed vehicle is a different part of the process to disembarking from a destroyed vehicle (that is – the unit suffers the damage from the vehicle destruction rather than from the act of disembarking from the destroyed vehicle), the ruling for this event (unless FAQed to the contrary between now and then) will be that all models on board will suffer damage as normal before moving to reserves.

I am aware that this isn’t necessarily what the fluff represents, but rules > fluff I’m afraid. If GW want to it work differently, then they need to write it accordingly. It’s a slippery slope for us to start interpreting fluff as correct intent for poorly or incorrectly written rules.”

That is a house rule.

Dozer - nope, its the actual, written rules. Given you have yet to find an actual rules argument against it, please retract your post or comply with the forum rules, which require you to back up your argument

Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

Sure, they've ruled in favor of fluff before. Think they'll rule Necrons on a NS don't care about Shaken/Stunned results either?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

Sure, as in that book the Necrons got blown to bits.

Also GW normally winds up going against general consensus with alot of their FAQ rulings.

They write the rules - it is what it is.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Take a quick look at the results of the forum poll. Do you care to make a wager how GW will resolve this if it's addressed in an FAQ?

No, because GW quite often go agains the actual rules when addressing a FAQ - falchions, for example. Again, please support your argument that the RAW is a "houserule" or retract it. Now.

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.

Except the position Nos is showing us is the only position that has the support of the rules.

No one has shown valid rules support to the contrary, even though they have made claims to the contrary.

How is this:

The 'nightscythe' rules indicate you need to put the models in reserves.

the 'crash and burn' rules indicate you need to hit the unit with a bunch of strength 10 hits and then place them on the table.

These two rules conflict; so if you substitute the first one for the second one the ' str 10 hits and putting the models on the table' part never happens. The point of contention here is where do you stop following the 'crash and burn' rules and start following the 'nightscythe' ones?

There is no specific (ie: rules valid) reason to only use 'some' of the nightscythe rules and 'some' of the 'crash and burn' ones for the purposes of determining which rule takes precidence when applying the 'codex trumps basic book' rule.


This does not defintively prove that the occupants of a nigthscythe do or do not take damage; but i believe it does indicate that there is definately room for discussion and it is not as cut-and-dried as some would indicate.

Actually The 'nightscythe' rules indicate you need to put the models in reserves instead of them being able to disembark.

And you have to suffer the hits before this happens.

Therefore your premise is incorrect.