Rules Question: Do Units in Night Scythes Take Damage when the Vehicle is Destroyed?

Let’s hear the arguments for and against, this is a hotly debated topic and I would like to hear more of what the community is thinking.

So, first things first. The question at hand is whether or not does a unit in a Night Scythe that is wrecked or explodes take the strength 10, ignores armor hits that a unit in any other flying transport take?

Here are the facts:

  1. BRB Pg. 81  states that a flyer that is wrecked or explodes! will scatter 2d6″ and then the large blast marker is placed, damaging units underneath it.
  2. If that flyer is also a transport, then all models within it take a strength 10, ignores armor hit.
  3. Survivors, if there are any, are then placed within 3″ of the blast markers final position. Note: This is not stated to be a disembarkation move but the implication is that it is.
  4. The rules for the Night Scythe state that a unit in a Night Scythe that is destroyed is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserves.

So, the question then is: do the models inside take the hit? The implication would be no they do not, as it seems logical. However, following the order of operations above, nowhere does it state that a unit in a Night Scythe would not take the hits that units in flying transports suffer when the transport is destroyed. Furthermore, the hits occur BEFORE a unit may leave the vehicle.  By RAW, the unit would take the hits, and then go into reserves.

Now, this opens up a lot of new questions such as: what happens to any survivors that fail a morale or pinning check as a result? Do these models get resurrection protocol roles?

We typically lean towards RAW interpretations of rules here as it allows for the least amount of personal bias. Following RAW means that anyone, anywhere, coming to our events can know what to expect so long as they have a rule book. In this case though, it is a really weird situation and we all know there are going to be a large amount of Night Scythes at the BAO, so let us know what you think.

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

71 Responses to “Rules Question: Do Units in Night Scythes Take Damage when the Vehicle is Destroyed?”

  1. KLG December 10, 2012 12:42 am
    #

    The reason they go into reserve is because the unit is never on the Scythe to begin with. The scythe is mearly a means in which the necrons get from their planet to the ground.
    Read the fluff and you see how the Scythes teleportation works, then you understand not only the RAW but the RAI. Thus the idea of the unit going into reserve and not taking damage if the Scythe is destroyed makes complete sense.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 12:20 pm
      #

      I agree that from a fluff perspective your argument makes sense, but we can’t use fluff for rules interpretations. The entry specifically says the unit is embarked on the vehicle, which further muddies the waters. By the rules, the unit is inside the Scythe, by the fluff, it is not.

      • Shinkaze December 10, 2012 1:39 pm
        #

        Yeah but you can’t expect me to agree that Orange is Purple. I just can’t be willfully ignorant.

        RAW is for truly ambiguous situations. By RAW a Wraithlord with a Wraithsword does nothing, there are only rules for Wraithblades. RAW is not for 24/7, it causes much harm to the community.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 10, 2012 3:33 pm
          #

          True, but then you get into the very grey area of basing rules judgments off of what we think GW meant, which opens the door to personal bias coming into play.

          • Darthdiggler December 10, 2012 3:53 pm
            #

            Nothing wrong with personal bias coming into play. That’s what you have done when you modify the scenario objectives you do in the BAO. By RAW you are not playing 40k according to the rule book already. It seems disingenuous to hide behind RAW in this instance when it has been broken at the most fundamental level already.

            I think personal bias should take over and judgements should be made by them. These adjustments to RAW, both in the scenario objectives, order of events to start the games, etc… Make it a better experience for all.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 10, 2012 4:35 pm
            #

            That’s a very good point. You actually can’t run a tournament by RAW, as there are no rules for running a tournament in the book. In order to run any type of organized event that isn’t straight book missions, you are modifying the game.

            We have always had the mindset that you can (and often should) modify the system to fit tournament requirements, but actual rules for the way units behave, we have almost always run as straight RAW. I know the difference may seem academic, but it has always existed to us. I think it may because the tournament structure is something people will know to expect way in advance.

            But at any rate, we are writing an FAQ for just this reason, so people know what to expect.

      • Shane December 11, 2012 6:36 am
        #

        As a cron player myself I do not see a clear answer to this either way using the book. However if you assume the hits occur make sure you add clarification around the use res orbs if the unit had a res orb carrying member in the transport that has now teleported away to safety.

        I am glad I do not have to make this ruling. Necron players will see this ruling as a form of comp scoring. Other armies will want it because it gives them a significant advantage. Remember strength 10 hits have a good chance of killing of the entire 5 man squad which means without an added character the whole squad will quite often be gone with no res protocol roll (assuming you give it to them).

        If I was forced to make the ruling I would lean towards saying they do not take hits. Simply from the point of view. That being said I do feel that flyers, so far, seem to be more bad than good for the game overall.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 11, 2012 4:27 pm
          #

          Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. It is not clear and the fluff and the rules directly contradict each other.

  2. Pascal Roggen December 10, 2012 2:19 am
    #

    you should post the entire relevant sections, it took a mate and I an hour of thrumming out every bit of it and came to the conclusion that they don’t take any damage. For a long time it seemed raw that they took damage but do enough sentence/word deconstruction and it’s in there. As much as I really Really thought they took damage to start with

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 12:21 pm
      #

      Would you mind stating where you got that? I haven’t seen anything to the contrary.

  3. englishmaninukraine December 10, 2012 3:41 am
    #

    This is a difficult question, and I wish GW would do a ruling on it.

    The unit is embarked. They can come out of the flyer. They are not in reserve (if they were, we would have to roll for them to enter play via table edges). They are not “In play” on the board itself. I can see no option but to say they are embarked inside the transport.

    Therefore, they would follow the rules as a normal unit would – S10 hits all round.

    HOWEVER, the fluff, and RAI seems to suggest they should bypass this. But I cannot see it in the rules (I wish I could – I’m a necron player myself!).

    Until there is a clear ruling from GW, when I play them, they take the hit. However, if at least one of the squad survives, they automatically take a Resurrection Protocol roll. The surviving unit is then placed in reserve, rather than on the table.

    If i need a fluffy reason for these deaths – signal degradation in the night-scythe pattern buffer. Not enough data was transfered out before the flier was completely destroyed. Something like that.

    I play the rules as fairly as I can, even if it seems to hurt my army. I hope and expect the same from an opponent.
    (But I still want GW to make a ruling and stop us worrying so much!)

  4. Black Blow Fly December 10, 2012 5:15 am
    #

    I saw a good argument using RAW that they don’t take the hits.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 12:22 pm
      #

      Do you remember what it was?

      • Black Blow Fly December 10, 2012 4:51 pm
        #

        Hi Reecius

        If you take a look at the rules for the Night Scythe on page 51 of the Necron codex refer to the rules for Access Points – it says to treat the wormhole gateway as its access point. It also states ‘For the purpose of embarking or disembarking… measure to and from the model’s base’. So they are explaining how to use the wormhole gateway… The unit is treated as being embarked for the purpose of how the rules work. Are they actually embarked – I don’t think so. You might remember that GW had to FAQ that Necron units can embark into a Night Scythe that’s already in play for clarity. RAW does not always work for every rule and this is such a case.

  5. jy2
    jy2 December 10, 2012 6:23 am
    #

    The transportees should not take any damage because Necron flyers are really under-powered. 😉

    No, j.k. I’m afraid the community is not going to agree on this one. It appears that the intent is that they probably shouldn’t take damage, but RAW seems to support the side where they do take damage. As for me, I play it as No because I want to keep my necron winning streak intact. 😀 😀 😉

  6. Neil Gilstrap December 10, 2012 6:36 am
    #

    The reason why the don’t take the hits is because it’s not “RaW” that they do to begin with that they take the hits.

    (Besides my argument which is sarcastic and intended more for humor than proof, another great resource for this discussion is here; http://www.theruleslawyers.com/2012/09/6th-edition-rulings-necron-night-scythes-crash-and-burn-and-embarked-models/)

    To approach this issue myself, I do so using the following two statements which I hold to be self-evident truths:

    1) It is blindingly obvious that the intent is that they do not take the hits. We all know they don’t. We all know that GW will rule that they don’t (if they even rule at all because it’s so blindingly obvious they may not even feel the need to rule… I know I wouldn’t :P…) That this is even a question is on par with the Doom of Malantai hitting units inside Transports, Look Out Sir from a Perils in the Warp, or other nonsense that is a blatant attempt to play 40K in a way in which we all know 40K isn’t played and yet somehow continuing to expect the rules that GW writes to be “rock-solid” in their interpretation when it is also blindingly obvious that they aren’t and never have been.

    #1 is very important not only so I can get my jabs in (which you should read the above with a lot of HUMOR because that’s what it is mostly there for 😛 ), but more importantly, because I feel it is very important to establish that the obvious ruling does not itself require a proof to be the correct answer because it is self evident.

    2) The interpretation that you do anything other than the obvious is that there is a RaW (read: undeniable interpretation presented by the text) interpretation which causes them to take the hits.

    So, essentially, if I can prove that there actually is no “RaW” interpretation, then we are left then with having to (*gasp*) find an interpretation that is most correct and would most likely reflect the way the rule would be interpreted by GW (which will be #1).

    On to disproving then that “taking the hits” is “RaW”….

    (I also want to point out that proving any interpretation is not “RaW” is SUPER EASY because the rules that GW writes can’t hold up in any way to this level of scrutiny. They themselves represent this in their own FAQs 😛 … which themselves don’t hold up to scrutiny…. So basically, to take a rules interpretation out of the rules which goes against the blindingly obvious is very hard to do because it requires some unassailable position to the order of 2+2=4 which is almost impossible to get given the rule set we have to work with. This is ultimately why saying something is “RaW” as to the sole evidence that it is correct when trying to do something we all know is incorrect never holds water 😛 So, what I’m saying is, I’m taking the easy way out. If you want a more reasonable interpretation, visit the link I provided above))

    So, I’ve got a lot of ways I can attack this “RaW” interpretation. I’ll just present one here to mull over and leave it at that. Ultimately, there is no way to bypass “ARGH NECRON FLYERZ SO BROKENZ!! must Rulez lawyer a way to NERF Them” rage. So, it’s not worth much more effort than that. 😛

    Really, if you want to nerf flyers, just play with all Forgeworld rules because the super broken stuff in Aeronautica like Sabers and Hydras platforms makes Flyers a lolfest and almost utterly worthless in a competitive environment. So, problem solved. 🙂

    Necrons pg 51:

    “If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (…).”

    As you can see, units are “not allowed” to disembark. A cursory reading then would lead to this line of thinking:

    “So, in that case, when they would normally go to disembark, they will enter reserve instead”

    or, you could even go EXTREME and read

    “Since you never actually disembark at all, then I guess this rule doesn’t work at all DERP!”

    However, neither of these two interpretations are technically correct because it doesn’t say “instead of disembarking” or even “when you would normally disembark”, it actually says “allowed to disembark”.

    The issue is that “allowed” does not specify a time nor series of events. If I am “not allowed” to eat cookies, there has no bearing on WHEN or WHAT I am doing. I am not allowed to eat then before dinner, after I open the cookie jar, or even next Tuesday.

    Likewise, passengers onboard a Night Scythe are “not allowed” to disembark if the Night Scythe is destroyed. This is no way states that “when they would normally disembark” because you must assume some element of TIME which is not explicitly stated.

    The rest of the sentence says “instead enters reserve” which when read properly says “instead [of being allowed to disembark], enters reserve.”

    So, for the passengers to take the hits, they MUST NOT be in reserve at the time they are supposed to take the hits. An incorrect reading of the Night Scythe rules will try to use them as a proof that the passengers are not in reserve, but this proof is not technically correct.

    The correct reading shows us that we actually don’t know if they are in reserve at the time they would normally be disembarking or not because telling me I am “not allowed” to do something does not tell me “when” I would apply that rule, rather that it is applied all the time that a Night Scythe is destroyed.

    Thus, I could equally argue that they go into reserve before the Crash and Burn rules even trigger with as much validity as someone who does not.

    Likewise, you could still argue that they are there when the hits are applied.

    You could even argue that the rule never applies at all since you don’t disembark (derp!)

    Most important for me, though, is that you can tell right away, what you are supposed to do isn’t “RaW”. It’s actually “read as interpreted” because no reading results in an infallable answer.

    And if we are going to start interpreting, I would rest my case on proposition #1… that we go with the blindingly obvious truth rather than go with some interpretation that we all know is wrong. (Or we could just pretend like we don’t have common sense! Hey, the law doesn’t say specifically that choking someone to death is murder… so I’m free to go, right?)

    Lastly, you could argue that my reading is overly pedantic… (and you should because it is 😛 humor lolz)

    And then I would again refer you to #1 and ask, who exactly is being overly pedantic? 😛

  7. BBF December 10, 2012 8:11 am
    #

    Very well said Sir Neil… A good read indeed .

    : )

  8. RP December 10, 2012 9:05 am
    #

    Surely it’s pretty obvious they take the hit then go into reserve?

    The damage has nothing to do with the placement part. Literally in the special rules section of the Night Scythe it refers to ‘carrying’ jump infantry. Its transport the unit, the unit suffers the effect, move on to disembark/placement option, activate ability, reserve.

    There’s 2 clear steps. (i) Apply damage. (ii) Place survivors. There’s not a thing in the Night Scythe rules that allows you to invalidate (i).

    I would be very surprised if it gets FAQ’d any other way.

    “Now, this opens up a lot of new questions such as: what happens to any survivors that fail a morale or pinning check as a result? Do these models get resurrection protocol roles?”

    Clearly no to the morale/pinning question as the rule activate after the placement which doesn’t happen. The resurrection one is a good question though!

  9. Defeatmyarmy December 10, 2012 11:03 am
    #

    Lol that’s an interesting arguement neil, however this is how RAW is interpreted. Your arguement seems to say necrons suffer no penalty for their vehicle being destroyed, so here is why I think:

    Pin check is after disembarking, so there is no pin check since they NEVER disembark. However, as they take s10 hits with no armor saves allowed, RAW would point to yes, they take a morale check if they survive. Because they are not disembarking no markers can be placed and the end of the shooting phase they cannot rp since the unit is not on the field.

    They enter reserve instead of disembarking, nowhere does it say in either FAQ, update, or book that they do not take damage. The vehicle blows up, necrons take the damage, cannot rp because they Enter reserve, pinning check is nulled cause they never disembark, however take a morale check if they lost 25%. If they fail it they’re destroyed. Trying to bend the rules so that necrons take no damage never was RAW and no fluff supports it either.

    • SCP Yeeman December 10, 2012 11:19 am
      #

      If there was a “Like” button or a “Thumbs Up” you would have my vote sir.

      Very very well said.

  10. The Overlord December 10, 2012 11:20 am
    #

    @Defeatmyarmy – Actually the fluff completely supports it. If you simply read the vehicle description. However, as currently written I agree with you RAW, they take damage and cannot RP. Hopefully they will see the folly and restore the Night Scythe to it’s previous and proper functioning.

  11. Defeatmyarmy December 10, 2012 11:57 am
    #

    Rofl wow the fluff finally read, I want to smash a land raider over mat ward. If you’re going to say their never in a transport specify it in the f****** rules and increase the points. Make em 125 – 150 pts and make the fluff real lol.

  12. frank December 10, 2012 12:28 pm
    #

    I think it’s a bit late bring this up now as it would have been more easy to sort out in 5th ed.
    I was involved in what was one of your last 5th ed tournaments & I asked a simple question (6th ed was out at this time) are the crons in the transport to which one of the crons players said no so nothing happens if it blows up, my reply was so that means then can’t score unless they get out.

    Now because in 6th ed they have to get out to score no cron player will ever agree to them been in the transport even though you’ll find that most of them used to hold objectives from inside them in 5th ed.

    The only way you ever sort this out is if GW FAQ it & as they haven’t done so by now then probably are not going to.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 3:34 pm
      #

      I agree GW needs to sort this out. Until then, unfortunately, we have to make a rules call ourselves.

  13. jadedknight December 10, 2012 12:51 pm
    #

    DakkaDakka had a very long you make da call thread on this back when 6th came out. It probably covers most of the arguments. If you have time to pick through it.

    http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/240/459610.page

  14. Gordy December 10, 2012 1:05 pm
    #

    It seems pretty clear to me, the sequence for damaged troops is pretty straightforward:

    1. Vehicle explodes

    2. Troops inside take damage

    3. Troops jump out

    The Night Scythe rule only changes 3 as far as I can tell, and while some people have said that the finer language lets you skip 2 I haven’t actually seen anyone post any arguments for it.

  15. KLG December 10, 2012 2:28 pm
    #

    Under the description for the Night Scythe:

    Unlike the armored carriers employed by other races, the Night Scythe does not have a transport compartment as such. Instead, it deploys troops by means of a captive wormhole whose far end is anchored on a distant Tomb World. Though this is far less flexible than the Monolith’s eternity gate, it does allow the Night Scythe to mimic the battlefield role of a more conventional transport vehicle without jeopardizing the existence of the assigned squad. If the Night Scythe is destroyed, it’s payload squad is simply isolated from the battle until an alternate means of deployment can be established.

    Plainly written and explained in the codex itself. The units are never on the Night Scythe, therefore are not present to be damaged when the Night Scythe is blow up.

    • Defeatmyarmy December 10, 2012 3:22 pm
      #

      Wrong, that is fluff only not the actual rules in the entry.

    • Gordy December 10, 2012 3:31 pm
      #

      Know the difference between fluff and rules.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 3:32 pm
      #

      Again, I agree. But you are looking at the fluff section, which is not the rules section. In this case the two directly contradict one another. The rules state specifically that the unit embarks onto the vehicle.

  16. Hippesthippo December 10, 2012 3:28 pm
    #

    When two events occur simultaneously, I thought the player whose turn it is decides the order they resolve in?

    Regardless, even a cursory reading of the codex reveals GW’s intent, and y’all will look awwwwwfully silly if GW puts a faq out after you rule that they take damage.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 3:31 pm
      #

      We don’t let what GW may or may not do influence our rules calls. GW writes ambiguous rules that say the opposite of what they meant them to say frequently, and we have had to change rulings many times on issues after an FAQ comes out. That doesn’t concern us at all, really. What does concern us is being consistent in our rules interpretations and fair. Unfortunately, using fluff for a rules justification, or what we feel will most likely happen, isn’t fair. Basing a rules judgement off of what is written in the rule section of a codex, is.

      • Hippesthippo December 10, 2012 4:29 pm
        #

        Why bother asking our opinions if you’re just going to do what you want to anyways?

        • Hippesthippo December 10, 2012 4:30 pm
          #

          Trying to build popular support for an unpopular decision?

    • Gordy December 10, 2012 3:34 pm
      #

      Damage and disembarking don’t happen simultaneously. The normal rules are clear that the passengers take the damage, then afterwards those that are left get out of the vehicle.

      I see nothing in the Night Scythe rule that makes their ‘disembark’ happen earlier than it normally would. All it does is make them jump into reserves and then walk on the table, but as far as I can tell it still happens after they take damage, not before and not simultaneously.

      • Defeatmyarmy December 10, 2012 4:03 pm
        #

        Also, interesting the FAQ says replace the access point codec entry with access point 1″ of the base. The wormhole entry from the original access point is no longer mentioned and they deploy using the special rule “invasion beam” so sounds like they’re embarked.

      • Hippesthippo December 10, 2012 4:22 pm
        #

        No, but going into reserve and taking damage both appear to happen immediately after the scythe is destroyed. Hence, whoevers turn it is decides the order.

  17. Charles December 10, 2012 3:34 pm
    #

    Um the Necron codex rule for damaged Night sythes Takes over at number 2. BRB has the rule for all you that dont use a dex flyers with trumping rules.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 10, 2012 4:28 pm
      #

      How does the Cron dex take over at number 2? Nothing in the rule indicates that at all. Again, I agree that that is the logical stance, but by RAW it honestly isn’t there.

  18. Brian December 10, 2012 4:01 pm
    #

    I think that the damage is taken because it says you cant disembark that they go into reserves… and if you read the night scythe section it says that the unit is embarked and therefore all steps before disembarking will still have effect. thats how i read it

    I think the biggest question is whether RP rolls are made cause technically there is no squad left to rejoin to, or do they do RP before the squad gets put into reserves.

  19. John December 10, 2012 4:07 pm
    #

    The advocates of Crons taking damage are asking for a lot more than simply ruling that Cron flyers are less broken, they are asking for an entire new chapter for what happens when units in reserve that have to take morale and/or pinning checks, how you fall back when you are never on the table and where you put RP markers when the models never hit the table. In essence, an entire missing chapter (or maybe 2 😉 ). On the other hand you could follow the path of least resistance (with robots resistance is futile folks duh) and just go with the fluff in which case we do not need to redesign the reserves rules, the morale check rules, the pinning rules and the size of the table for the ‘reserves’ space for the RP markers. Just my tuppence. In full disclosure I do occasionally play Crons, I hate Cron flyers in the way I hate Grey Knight grenades so I never run them and prefer a more Canoptek approach ( I luvs Scarabs ). I also play Daemons and was right about that FAQ by way of references LOL.

    • Hippesthippo December 10, 2012 4:34 pm
      #

      Thumbs up. We shouldn’t have amateur game designers adding an entire section to the rulebook to support a poorly worded, and obvious, GW mistake.

  20. steven morrow December 10, 2012 4:57 pm
    #

    Lets look at it from a game perspective. You have two choices. One is that they dont take the damage and they go to reserve. Easy peasy no morale checks or res protocols to worry about cut and dry. Two they do take the damage and all the inherent checks and carnage to the squad so you force the necron player to deploy the unit inside early and get them into the fight instead of holding them for last minute grabs. As a player i want to be able to fight my enemy not have him buzz around all game. From a game enjoyment perspective take the damage or get in the fight is a far more enjoyable games. So as a TO are you wanting a game with less paperwork or a more mutually enjoyable game.

  21. edwin December 10, 2012 5:27 pm
    #

    I always thought it worked like this.
    1)vehicle is destroyed
    2)people take hits
    3) survivors get out.

    For night scythes, it is different
    1)vehicle is destroyed
    2) special rule triggers because vehicle is destroyed, passangers go to reserves
    3)remaining passangers take hits(no one aboard)

    It is important to note that the special rule doesn’t happen when you would disembark, but when the vehicle is destroyed.

  22. Ben Cromwell December 10, 2012 5:34 pm
    #

    I agree, the trigger for going into reserve is the Night Scythe being destroyed, NOT the unit having to disembark

  23. jy2
    jy2 December 10, 2012 5:45 pm
    #

    I vote that you houserule it:

    They take the hit and then go back into reserves without having to take any morale/pinning checks. They also get to take any RP tests as long as 1 model from the unit survives. Units with the Ever-living rule can always take their EL test in such a case.

    It’s a fair compromise. Either that, or let the cron players have their way. I believe most tournaments play the RAI anyways, including NOVA.

  24. Defeatmyarmy December 10, 2012 8:00 pm
    #

    GW seems to already re-word the rules entry in their faq:

    Page 51 – Night Scythes, Access Points.
    Change to “1 (the base of the model)”.

    1) DOES THIS MEAN THE WORMHOLE ENTRY UNDER ACCESS POINT DELETES? READ FURTHER

    Page 51 – Night Scythes.
    Add the following special rule:
    “Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase
    embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark before or after
    the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so
    long as the vehicle has not moved more than 36″. If the Night
    Scythe moves more than 24″ in the same turn, the disembarking
    unit can only fire Snap Shots.”

    The access point is changed to one sentence and instead of a wormhole it now has a Invasion Beam? This one sounds like they tried to remove the fluff.

  25. David Key December 11, 2012 8:24 am
    #

    I will just chime in here. I think we are all arguing over the wrong thing. The point should not be what GW wants it to be. As they have shown, they do not have a perfect eye for balance and tournament rules. So if we are talking about a tournament ruling, then it only makes sense to interpret it in a way that creates a better balanced playing atmosphere. Magic the Gathering has been doing this for years. When they screw up and create overpowered cards or combos, they release bans and limits on them for tournament play formats.

    So the question is not what is RAW or RAI. The question is whether Necron air will be an overly abused army at BAO depending on what interpretation is more balanced.

    With that being said, I do not have enough experience against it to weigh in. It seems a bit unbalanced to me, but then again, I have not seen it win any major tournaments lately. Daemons seems to be more the focus on everyone’s minds

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 11, 2012 4:03 pm
      #

      I agree with this in principal, but then, who makes those calls?

  26. Castle December 11, 2012 11:23 am
    #

    DakkaDakka has a poll running, which is interesting to see what the consensus on their forums are;

    http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/491464.page

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 11, 2012 2:12 pm
      #

      Nice! hanks for posting that, that is good to see.

  27. Defeatmyarmy December 11, 2012 5:24 pm
    #

    Gw needs to update this but probably never will. The fact that in the updated FAQ it says they are specifically embarked via special rule: invasion beam and the fact the access point entry has been completely removed besides saying they have to be with 1″ of the base to re-embark doesnt mean anything and they take no damage because even though they’re embarked “they can see into the future before they blow up derp.”

    Everything is pointing to them taking all penalties besides pinning. I’m a cron player but even though I’m Waac the only people arguing in favor of fluff that never made it into the actual rules. Most people are using the codex fluff only, when gw specifically says to change the rules in their FAQ. I’m done repeating my argument and making 2 lists if gw ever fixes it it will favor other armies fly boys sound like they just want an easy no thought win theres more to a codex than one trick ponies especially Xeondexes

    • Hippesthippo December 11, 2012 9:49 pm
      #

      I, for one, vehemently disagree and I am most certainly looking at the rules, or lack there of. And therein lies the problem.

      Please note that morale checks happen at the end of a phase, so the Necron troops are most certainly in reserves at that point. There are zero rules outlining how to take a moral check while you’re in reserve.

      Resurrection Protocols happen at the end of a phase, so once again the Necron troops in question are again undoubtedly in reserves when this step happens. There are zero rules outlining how Resurrection Protocols work while a unit is in reserve.

      The FACT that there are zero rules explaining how to deal with said hypothetical situation, where a unit takes damage from an exploding Night Scythe before being placed in reserves, strongly indicates that this situation never actually occurs.

      All of you haters incessantly argue that you simply want to play “rules as written,” when the fact of the matter is that there AREN’T any rules written for such a scenario. This is a permissive rule set. If it doesn’t explicitly state that you can do it, then you are not allowed to do it.

      So what are we to do in such an ambigous circumstance? Use common sense! Read the rules in the context of the entire codex and infer as best we can what the outcome of said situation should be. And that, my friends, is blatantly obvious; the unit goes back in reserves without suffering any penalties. Keep it simple, stupid.

      Cheers.

      • Defeatmyarmy December 11, 2012 10:59 pm
        #

        Lol vehement all you want, doesnt change the facts or the fact GW had a update fact, so get out of your toddler chair. This is for 6th editiohn copied and pasted from their fact. Your essay is hating on the rules of the game, the FAQ explicitly states they are embarked so keep raging.

        Page 51 – Night Scythes.
        Add the following special rule:
        “Invasion Beams: A unit that begins its Movement phase
        embarked upon a Night Scythe can disembark before or after
        the vehicle has moved (including pivoting on the spot, etc) so
        long as the vehicle has not moved more than 36″. If the Night
        Scythe moves more than 24″ in the same turn, the disembarking
        unit can only fire Snap Shots.”

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 12, 2012 1:47 pm
          #

          Hey guys, we encourage discussion and points of views, but as always, we demand that you guys keep it civil. This isn’t BoLS. So far this conversation has been great, but do not start hurling insults at each other.

  28. Defeatmyarmy December 12, 2012 10:10 am
    #

    Also, you can’t argue the fluff either. In the book hammer and anvil sisters of battle destroy a night scythe and the necrons on the other side of the portal get raped by the explosion. Fluff,FAQ and 6th edition rules all contradict everything you just said.

    • Castle December 12, 2012 11:38 am
      #

      Well then it just becomes a case of fluff not agreeing with fluff. And in my opinion codex fluff > obscure novel fluff. The codex’s fluff specifically states that the scythe was designed such that if it is destroyed the transportees would be fine and safe from harm so that they could continue to fight in the battle once they arrive.

      As for your FAQ argument, that is just an additional rule added to allow troops to disembark and embark in the nightscythe, since before this wasn’t possible due to the flyers rules since the nightscythe is forced to move too fast to allow normal embark and disembarks, it has nothing to do with proving or disproving any fluff. It’s just added so that the unit can function.

      The 6th edition rules also seem to fail at justifying this as if you play that the necrons take the hits then it brings more unanswered and difficult questions to the table than if they didn’t take the hits(such as morale and RP and EL). Overall it is a very clunky situation that frequently occurs that is made unclunky if the necrons simply don’t take the hits as seems to be the intention in the necron codex. It is simply a matter of a new rule causing issues in a codex that doesn’t specifically state what to do about a rule that did not exist when the codex was released.

      I am hopeful that GW will release a FAQ to clear this up in the future but I’m not holding my breath as GW releases are sporadic and don’t always answer desired questions.

      Thus far I think the way that most people have been playing is correct with the crons not taking the hits, but I can understand other peoples opinion and desire to see the scythe nerfed so that they do take the hits to try and justify the criminally low point cost of the nightscythe. People seem to forget that this is necrons and we break all the rules all the time. These discussions seem reminiscent of monolith discussions when the 3rd edition codex was released and it broke all the rules, its always the necrons they can never have a clean release.

      • Defeatmyarmy December 12, 2012 2:23 pm
        #

        Ya, I apologize but it really seems that the necron codex was written in between 5th and preparing for 6th. I don’t think the game designers knew how broken it would be with the change in flyers, and the wording in the faqs are definitely grey. (well, ward might’ve).

        I know im arguing against the very army I put my hard earned money into, but I know I would fuming if I found out I lost by a misread ruling. The only weakness to night scythes is the reserves rule, making them footslog. This is countered with obyron and duel lord despair teks. Full flyer armies are practically invincible, so I wouldn’t be surprised if necrons started knocking each other out like the grey knights at the last bao.

        • Hippesthippo December 12, 2012 5:04 pm
          #

          Your response has nothing to do with my comment. Thanks for trying. My argument goes like this: There are no rules governing such a situation, therefore said situation was not intended to exist.

          Capiche?

  29. Defeatmyarmy December 12, 2012 7:25 pm
    #

    Whatever dude I’m done arguing til the bao go ahead and have the last word I’ve said my thoughts.

  30. Benji December 13, 2012 6:05 am
    #

    Me and my gaming group actually had quiet a pickle with this and we actually made our decision when reading the rule for Lord of Fire in the C’tan entry. That rule right there works against anything described as using fire or flame. It very much uses the fluff as an extension of the rules. If that can be done in one part of the codex why not another?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 13, 2012 1:57 pm
      #

      Yeah, it is really confusing, GW needs a technical writer to at least proof their books. It would be cheap, too, they could do it on a contract basis and it would solve so many problems.

  31. Charlie December 13, 2012 11:51 am
    #

    After reading the rules and issue that has been identified, I suppose it clarified me as not a RAW type person at all. Unfortunately, we’ve seen this kind of debate over and over and GW has occasionally ruled on what they ‘intended’ for a lack of better words. For whatever reason, one of the most glaring RAW vs RAI debates where expletives got thrown at each side was the ‘Deff Rolla being utilized to Ram another vehicle’. Folks were getting extremely nitpicky at every single word in the Deff Rolla, Tank Shock and Ram rules and was very pushy about Deff Rollas not being allowed to hit vehicles (also, this huge debate was during a first round of Ard Boyz, IIRC). Then, GW ruled that Deff Rollas do work against vehicles and all was silent. To me, I just looked at a picture in the codex of a Battlewagon with Deff Rolla rolling over and crushing some tank and wondered why folks were trying to be so pedantic over a couple of ambiguous words from a 4th edition codex while playing 5th edition.

    Then again, I think GW also ruled that folks can take a cover save vs. the ‘Gets Hot rule.

  32. Aycee71 December 18, 2012 9:12 am
    #

    I’m late into this argument but I have yet to see one critical point in this whole discussion. If you believe that RAW is that the Necrons take the hits then exactly what rule set do you use for RP, EL, pinning, and morale checks? Where do you place the counters for RP and EL if the rest of the squad is in reserve? In order to say that RAW that they take the S10 hits, you then have to make up and create new rules in order to deal with the situations that are created by that ruling. You would need to create new rules and interpretations of existing rules in order to cover the consequences that they take the hits.

    On the other hand you can see from intent, fluff, and the fact that a timing element doesn’t exist and rule that they do not take the hits but instead go straight into reserves. At that point in time no new rules are needed to cover situations that arise.

    I see it as what decision has the least impact on the current rule set. Ruling that they take the hits creates major waves in exactly what happens afterwards. Ruling that they take no hits and just go into reserve has the least amount of impact in a vaguely written rule.

    As a Necron player who does take some flyers I want to know ahead of time what I am suppose to do if they do take the hits. Do I get me RP and EL rolls. Do I have to take a pinning test or morale test being that what is left of my unit is in reserves and what does it mean if I fail one or both rolls. Where do I place my RP and EL counters? Where do I place models if I successfully roll for them to come back? Because to answer any of those questions you are going to have to make up rules that do not exist in either the codex or BRB.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 18, 2012 12:09 pm
      #

      It is a very complex rules question. For one, as you point out, the rules and the fluff directly contradict one another. For two, following RAW creates more problems than it solves. For three, Necron fliers are going to be everywhere this tournament season and so it is a rules call that will really impact the game.

  33. SCP Yeeman December 27, 2012 10:28 am
    #

    Not to beat a dead horse, but I wanted to put another perspective on this.

    What do you do in missions like The Relic? Because the Warriors can re-embark, their flier will crash. If you allow them not to take the hits, are they taking the Relic with them? Then they take it off board and keep it? If they do take the hits, than the model with it has a very good chance of dying to prevent this from happening.

    Just a thought.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 27, 2012 11:58 am
      #

      I am not certain you can embark on a flier, as a unit can only move 6″ with the relic in any phase and a flier must move 36.” I see your point, though, I am splitting hairs a bit.

  34. SCP Yeeman December 27, 2012 12:12 pm
    #

    I think it can definately embark on the flier. No restrictions as to doing so. However, the flier will then be forced to crash because it does not move the obligatory 18” (not 36!) it must in the movement phase. Its funny because in The Relic Mission, it even warns about putting it in a flier because it will crash if it attempts to zoom. (Pg 131 under “Moving with the Relic,” last sentence)

    Just another layer to add to what is an already complex ruling youguys have to make! Glad I can make it easier on you guys! LOL

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 27, 2012 2:57 pm
      #

      Ah yes, 18″, up to 36″, thanks for correcting me on that.

      And I didn’t read the rule, that is funny that it brings it up. And yes, haha, even more confusion! I think we have to rule that the unit goes back into reserves as it is the simplest ruling, probably what was intended if not what the rule actually says.

  35. Castle January 14, 2013 9:48 am
    #

    The digital version of the codex has been updated to say that the passengers don’t take damage and are just placed into reserves. We should see a FAQ update soonish to bring the printed codex up to date with the digital codex. Just thought you might be interested to know.

    • Reecius
      Reecius January 14, 2013 11:27 am
      #

      Excellent! Glad that is cleared up.