Necron Night Scythe and exploded result for troops question.

[Denied]

So here is a rules question that came up. When a Night Scythe is destroyed by an explosion do you roll to wound the models inside before they go into reserve? For reference:

Page 81 of the BRB
"Crash And Burn:
If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit. the Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties"

Page 51 of the Necron Codex:
"Transport: The Night Scythe has a transport capacity of 15. It can carry jump infantry (each model takes up two points of transport capacity) and jetbikes (each model takes up three points of transport capacity). 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)."

Nothing in the current FAQ (at least that I found), I personally don't see why the units do not still suffer the wounds from the explosion. How do others interpret this?

Additionally is they do suffer wounds how do you then deal with things like "We'll Be Back" and pinning/ Running leadership rolls?

[Learn2Eel]

I think the general consensus is that the passengers aboard a Night Scythe do not suffer the effects of Crash and Burn, however, I'm not sure really. There's nothing to my knowledge that suggests that the passengers aren't actually embarked on the transport, hence they would still suffer the effects before being moved into reserve. I might be mistaken, but it appears that RAW says that they do suffer the effects, but RAI says they don't.

[Denied]

Yeah as a TO I stick strictly to RAW and to me it appears as per RAW that they take the wounds. Looking at the wording there appears to be an order to actions: first the vehicle scatters, second units under the scatter take wounds, third passengers take wounds, and fourth surviving passengers then disembark. Since the Necron codex applies only to the disembark step the wounds occur prior to disembarking the unit.

[lobster-overlord]

Isn't it that they are Necrons and not actually aboard the night scythe, but phase in when they are dropped from the vehicle, thus they arn't aboard at the moment of destruction and remain in reserve until brought in?

Or did I miss something about how necrons function?

[Denied]

There is nothing in the fluff that says that or the game mechanics and since the game mechanics state the vehicle has a transport capacity then they are in the vehicle. In fact according to all the game mechanics they are in the vehicle.

[Tynskel]

yeah, but you don't find it odd that instead of being placed on the board, they go into reserves.
And, no, the The Fluff would state that they haven't even left the mothership yet.

[StarWarsDoug]

RAI- the models are always in reserve, they are thransported thru the vehicle into battle, thus do not suffer any effects of crash and burn, or any embarked effects, nor can they be targetted by any weapon or psychic power. They are in reserve until in play, they are just forced to enter thru their transport unless it is destroyed.

This will be FAQ'd soon to RAW.

[Nabterayl]

It is odd, but I agree with Denied. Mechanically, they're in the transport (page 51 even calls them "embarked" upon the Night Scythe), so Crash and Burn still applies except that the passengers are placed in Reserve after the wounds are distributed. For that matter, so does the regular Explodes! result.


"This is Night Scythe 001101001. I'm hit. Opening disembarkation portal."

"001101001! Don't do that! Close the portal!"

"It's okay, Mothership. I can hold it."

"Close the portal!"

"I can hold it!"

<flaming debris spews into the mothership, eviscerating the waiting squad>

[Tynskel]

The reason they are 'embarked' is quite clear: this is so you have to assign a squad to a transport. No cheating shenanigans allowed.

However, they do not appear on the board. They do not suffer the effects of 'explode', whether it is in the air, or on the ground.

The str10 hit is them falling out of the sky and going splat.

[Nabterayl]

Why do we care if they're on the board? Explodes! only cares whether a unit is embarked, which they clearly are.

I can ... sort of see the argument that Night Scythe passengers are not "within" the Night Scythe within the meaning of Crash and Burn, but I don't think I favor an interpretation of "within" that results in Night Scythe passengers being affected by Explodes! (which I think they clearly are) but not by Crash and Burn.

[Tynskel]

see, I don't think they are effected by the crash n' burn. That's the point of the rule: replace x with y. Instead of the result of wrecked, etc. doing x, the unit is placed into reserve.

For some reason, people are thinking that one still does 'all of the above'. That's not what happens.

[Nabterayl]

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you think that they're affected by:

Explodes!, but not Crash and Burn, or
Neither Explodes!, nor Crash and Burn?

[Tynskel]

The vehicle goes boom.

The unit embarked:
instead of x rules for the embarked unit, do y rule.

in this case: instead of everyone taking a str10 hit and being placed onto the board, the unit is placed into reserves.

This rule is 1) a conflict with the rulebook.
2) this rule is a 'replace x with y'

so what is x?
X is the entire rule, not an aspect of the rule. when the vehicle is wrecked, a whole series of events occurs, and the necron rule replaces the entire series of events.

If one was to only replace 1 part of the rule, then you would end up with all sorts of hairy situations. Does the unit take a pinning test in reserves? No, so that is replacing that part of the rules, too. etc.

[Nabterayl]

I don't have a necron codex in front of me at the moment, but I don't see where from


If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve

you see authorization to ignore


If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes ... [and] the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed.

The necron rule says don't disembark, enter Reserve instead. I don't see what that has to do with suffering hits.

EDIT: Missed your edit. X is not the entire rule. X is disembarking. That much is plain from the text.

Whether or not we have hairy situations as a result of X not being the entire rule is a separate issue. It may be that we do have a hairy situation in this case, but that's okay. That can inform our interpretation of the rule, but that is a separate issue from what the rule actually is.

[Tynskel]

Ah, but this whole part is related to the embarked unit, and the embarked unit will have to disembark.
The question becomes applying only part of the effects, all of the effects, or none of the effects.

To be consistent, none of the effects. Why? To be consistent with the rest of the rules in the game. Any other 'disembarking' effect occurs all at the 'same time' essentially. The wording is different for the Flyer, but nonetheless, the result is the same. Unit is 1) forced to disembark and 2) effected by some game effect. It really doesn't matter that the order has changed because it is all under the envelope of the unit being effected by the same mechanic: transport ≠ transport anymore.

[Nabterayl]

I don't know that I buy that argument. That's arguing that, if A and B occur simultaneously, B must be caused by A. That's just not true. What's wrong with applying only some of the effects? Just that it asks us to answer hard questions like "What happens to a unit that is Pinned in Reserve?" or "Do units in Reserve take Morale tests?" Those questions may not have answers in the text of the rules, but I don't see how that gets us off the hook from having to ask them.

[Tynskel]

Ah, parsimony comes into play.
Why complicate the rules?

It is simpler that replace x with y, and it works with how the rules are written.
Besides, your argument of A and B are not applicable to this situation: the transport is no more (A) and now do this (B). B is being caused by A.

B is variable in both length and action. A is always the same: transport is no more.

[Nabterayl]

... simpler, I buy. But in my mind, "The implications of the text lead to indissoluble difficulty, so let's all agree to do it X way" is not the same as "The implications of the text are do it X way." I don't mean that in a snarky way; sometimes that happens - taking Morale checks while embarked on transports in 5th edition comes to mind as a good example.

The rules tell us, when a transport is destroyed (A), any unit embarked or "within" (whatever that means) suffers some hits (B), and disembarks (C), and takes a Pinning test (D). A causes B, C, and D, but B, C, and D are all causally independent of each other.

The necron codex only actually tells us to replace C. To be sure, this results in great - possibly indissoluble - difficulty. What does D mean for a unit in Reserve? B seems straightforward to apply, but its potential consequences (a unit failing a Morale test) are not.

So what are we to do? It seems like people are arguing that rather than wrestle with the difficulties presented by replacing only C, we should just pretend that the codex tells us to replace B, C, and D. I don't have a problem with people doing that, but that doesn't mean that's what the codex tells us to do.

[Tynskel]

yeah, I understand.

Although, I still think the rulebook is stating what I said before:

A->B
B is variable in length and description. (in reference to what you have written, B is made up of parts C and D).

A = transport no more.

If read in this relationship, the Necron rule simple replaces B.

Similar case would be the 'ramshackle table'. The rule replaces 'all of the above'.

[Nabterayl]

I understand that too, but I don't think it's a very natural. If you tell me,


"When you arrive at the grocery store, deposit your paycheck, buy some broccoli, and flirt with the cute girl behind the deli counter," (call this <A>)

and somebody else tells me,

"When you arrive at the grocery store, don't flirt with the cute girl behind the deli counter but instead ask the butcher how his kids are doing," (call this <B>)

and I go to the grocery store, ask the butcher how his kids are doing, and you ask me, "Why haven't you deposited your paycheck or bought any broccoli?"

and I say,

"Somebody told me <B>, so I executed <B>!"

and you say,

"<B> only pertained to one part of <A>!"

and I say,

"When somebody gives me a conditional statement that has the exact same premise as a previous conditional statement I've received, and a conclusion that refers to only one of the conclusions of the previously received conditional statement, I naturally replace the entire previous conditional statement with the new one,"

and you say,

"You're an idiot; nothing that person told you related to depositing your paycheck or buying broccoli,"

you would be right.

EDIT: Didn't mean to imply that Tynskel, or people who share his reading, are idiots - that was just meant to be a bit of humor.

[Tynskel]

This example irks me because you have no before then after.

If you had stated: drive your car and arrive at the grocery store. Event A.
then, all the effects. (Event B) buying broccoli. and flirting, of course flirting!

But, now, car blows up.
I don't got to the store. I am now placed into reserves.

The lumping of everything at the store is contingent on getting to the store.
Through the interpretation of replacing 'B' the Necron book, in effect, is stating that none event B can occur anymore.

I guess what I am really trying to say is that the necron book is changing the effects, and the only rule that the necron book needs to trigger these effects is a transport disappearing–not how it disappears, but that it is just gone.

[Nabterayl]

But there is a before. It's just a conditional. There's a protasis, and one or more apodosites, just like any other conditional. There's nothing special about it.

The necron codex states, "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve." The protasis is, "If the Night Scythe is destroyed." The apodosis is "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve."

When applying the rule, we ask if the protasis has been fulfilled. Has the Night Scythe been destroyed? Have I arrived at the grocery store? If yes, apply the apodosis or apodosites.

In the case of the Night Scythe, as in the case of my two instructors, there are actually two conditionals that begin, "If the Night Scythe is destroyed" (one from the codex, one from the BRB). One event satisfies both (identical) protasites. The codex apodosis tells you not to apply one of the three BRB apodosites, but to replace it with something else. It does not say anything, one way or the other, about the other two.

You're contending that, by virtue of having an identical protasis, it impliedly does - that the codex impliedly says not to take a Pinning test, and not to take any hits.

My example was intended to point out that that is not how identical protasites work. (If A then X), and (if A then Y), works out to (if A then X and Y). It does not work out to (if A then Y), which is what you're suggesting.

[Tynskel]

well, my approach is a different application to the rules.

I am saying that pinning+str 10 + disembarking + etc are one list, and that functionally, if you replace 1 you have automatically replaced all. The codex does not state to continue with all the other effects, it just says that with the transport destroyed place the unit in reserve.

one interpretation is to do what you say, but I find it difficult to choose when to apply which effect.
the other interpretation is to treat the transport destruction as a 'switch'. When the switch is activated: do what the rulebook states. codex rule states to do something else, which is a strict specific interference with the rules, and since nothing else is stated, only the codex rule applies.

[Nabterayl]

I suspect that conditionals with multiple identical protasites are not something you would ordinarily find troubling. What do you do in your normal life?

To take a more macabre example that more closely mirrors the situation we're in, suppose your wife told you yesterday, "when I die, I want you to give my doll collection to my sister, sell my jewelry and put the proceeds to our daughter's college fund, and melt all my space marines with a blowtorch." When your wife dies, you find in her will - dated the day after she told you the above - the following statement: "When I die, instead of melting all my space marines with a blowtorch, I direct that they be displayed on the mantle for a period not less than one year and one day."

Do you have then-effective instructions to:
Give your wife's doll collection to her sister?
Sell your wife's jewelry and put the proceeds in your daughter's college fund?
Melt your wife's space marines with a blowtorch?
Display your wife's un-melted space marines on the mantle for a period not less than one year and one day?
I feel like most people would say the effective instructions are 1, 2, and 4. The approach you're taking would say the only effective instruction is 4, on the grounds that your wife actually only told you to do one thing originally, not three. In a non-40K context, does that not strike you as plainly the wrong way to interpret her conditional statement?

EDIT: I guess, to put my question another way, I'm asking when you would ever take a conditional statement that says, "if A, then X, Y, and Z" and take Y to refer to the entire apodosis by synecdoche. I understand what you're doing, but that's just not an approach that makes sense to me.

[Tynskel]

See, the conditionals you are coming up with don't make sense for this situation.

The necrons are going to the store to buy eggs, milk, and fruit. On the way to the store, their Ressurection barge looses a grav engine, and they have to hop out. They still make it to the store.

The necrons are going to the store to buy eggs, milk, and fruit. They are actually aboard the 'mothership' and physically not traveling to the store, the night scythe is. Then the night scythe looses and engine. Now, the necrons are still headed to the store, but it will take them a lot longer to get there...

I just don't see this as a situation where the conditions that you speak of are the same situation entirely. Furthermore, I am not aware of a situation in the rulebook where you only replace 1 part of an event. The ramshackle is, again, a good example, it says do 'this' instead, and then states 'now do the rest' of the action. The Necron codex doesn't do that, it just says replace the action with another action. When it comes to exploding transports, there is a list of things that happen, because the list is interrupted, I cannot conceivable justify continuing with the list, I am only doing what the new rule states to do.

[Foreigner]

well, my approach is a different application to the rules.

I am saying that pinning+str 10 + disembarking + etc are one list, and that functionally, if you replace 1 you have automatically replaced all. The codex does not state to continue with all the other effects, it just says that with the transport destroyed place the unit in reserve.

one interpretation is to do what you say, but I find it difficult to choose when to apply which effect.
the other interpretation is to treat the transport destruction as a 'switch'. When the switch is activated: do what the rulebook states. codex rule states to do something else, which is a strict specific interference with the rules, and since nothing else is stated, only the codex rule applies.

Read the crash and burn rule in its entirety and pay attention to (what I'm going to hereafter call "keywords")

Page 81 of the BRB
"Crash And Burn:
If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit. the Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties"

Keywords: Wrecked or Explodes, Transport, models within, Survivors, Placed.

Now check the NightScythe rule

Page 51 of the Necron Codex:
"Transport: The Night Scythe has a transport capacity of 15. It can carry jump infantry (each model takes up two points of transport capacity) and jetbikes (each model takes up three points of transport capacity). 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)."

Keywords: Destroyed, Transport, embarked unit, Disembark, enters reserve

Lets start with the given scenario: Player A shoots down Player B's nightscythe, containing for simple math 10 warriors.

This clearly triggers both rules. A flyer was wrecked or exploded (both of which contain the word destroyed, so a nightscythe has been destroyed.

Lets try and follow the wrecked flyers rule, and side with the nightscythe rules anywhere a conflict arises:

a) Scatter a large blast 2d6 and resolve the next 2 sentences: no conflicts as of yet, damage from the template is assigned, and the flyer is removed.

b) If the flyer is a transport (check) models within (embarked units are defined as within the transport) take a str 10 hit with no armor saves: still no conflict in the rules, no models have disembarked, either voluntarily or by force of rule

c) Survivors are placed within 3" of the blast marker's position: still no conflict, models simply placed without disembarking.

d) remove models that can't be placed: no conflict.

So 10 warriors took str 10 hits, likely 8-9 died. Put the 1-2 remaining on the board with reanimation tokens, roll at the end of the phase after morale.


Alternate interpretation:

c) Survivors are placed within 3" of the blast marker's position: conflict-- models can't be forced to disembark a wrecked nightscythe, instead they go into reserve.

So 10 warriors took str 10 hits and 8-9 died. 1-2 survivors are placed in reserves with no reanimation counters.

The Nightscythe rule determines only how a unit disembarks a destroyed transport. It does not change any other aspects of the game. As the crash and burn rule is seperated into multiple independent sentences and presented sequentially: A then B then C then D etc. each section occurs without conflict with the nightscythe until the unit must be placed. Either way you take step C, the unit has taken the str 10 hit already.

The keywords we looked at are the places where the conflicts could occur. If Crash and Burn asked a player to "disembark" their models before the str 10 hit, then I agree, off to reserves they go. That appears nowhere in the rules.

[Tynskel]

I disagree. All of those events happen at the same time, and the rules are triggered typically in sequential order. This is why I think the necron rule, which clearly conflicts with the rulebook, takes precedent and overrides the normal rules entirely.

This is not like the assault phase where is a specific step by step order of operations, where one rule can just replace another.

[Nabterayl]

I still don't think that's necessary. The necron rule doesn't purport to override the rulebook in its entirety (unlike, say, the Ramshackle table). Why should we read that into the text? Surely you aren't proposing as a general rule that every time multiple things happen simultaneously, and one of them is overridden, the others simply don't happen?

EDIT: You're clearly investing a lot of import in the simultaneity factor. I agree that all the usual consequences of a transport being destroyed occur simultaneously, but I don't see why that is so important to you. The fact that they occur simultaneously does not make them dependent upon each other either mechanically or as a matter of logic, but you seem to be saying that because they happen simultaneously they are inseparable.

[Foreigner]

The rule includes sequential language.

The flyer is destroyed. -- Given, starting event that triggers the remainder of the rule.

Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". Any model under the blast marker's final position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit. the Flyer is then taken off the board. emphasis mine. -- Start with a blast, THEN scatter it. resolve the hits. THEN remove the flyer. Thats a temporal resolution of A then B then C.

If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. emphasis mine. -- If the flyer is ALSO a transport, ie. Having already completed the above, check if additional action is required - if yes, continue resolution. Having already scattered a blast and resolved it, and then removing the flyer, do additional action if it was a transport.

Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. emphasis mine -- Survivors of what? if all these actions are occuring at the exact same time, who survived the hits? If we haven't resolved hits, how do I know how many survivors there are?

Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties. -- How can I place models without having scattered the blast yet? What if I place them within the blast itself, would they then take the str 6 hit as well? If its all happening at the same time, and not sequentially, how can I know what has taken place at all?

The argument you're making about replacing the whole rule because of the change to disembark would not only mean that you take no str 10 hits, it would mean no blast is ever scattered, no str 6 hits resolved, and the flyer is never removed from the board either.

The only conflict between the two rules is what happens to models after the str 10 hit is already resolved. Necrons that live go into reserve. Space marines in a storm raven are placed near the blast.

[Tynskel]

No, there are no steps:
1) stuff that happens to the vehicle
2) stuff that happens to the hypothetical passengers

All of the events for the hypothetical passengers happen at the same time.
The Necron rule interrupts this event.

Note that the vehicle still scatters whether you have passengers or not.

[Foreigner]

How can all the events that happen to the passengers occur at the same time? I just showed that they can't.

The rule says passengers take str 10 hits. It also says survivors are placed near the blast from the other bit of the rule. Again, I ask, survivors of what? How can I be a survivor of something that is simultaneously ongoing? "I'm so glad I lived through this earthquake.", she said, as the building collapsed on top of her, killing her.

Even the way you describe the rule lends to an ongoing process "the necron rule interrupts this event". How can something be interupted if its happening at the same time. If I'm building a house and you interrupt me, it will be at least partially built. If I could simultaneously build the entire house, and you interrupted me, it would either be fully unbuilt, or fully built.

Your claim as to the the rule interaction is: Instead of installing the plumbing, don't build the house.

My claim as to the rule interaction is: Instead of installing the plumbing, have no water in your house.

[craniumdamage750]

I highly doubt that GW wrote this rule to severely cripple the necrons if their transport is destroyed. I do argue the timing of when a transport is considered destroyed. Also on page 74 of the BRB under wrecked vehicles it states this, "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 hull points is immediately wrecked...The vehicle is destroyed, and the crew is slain." First sentence of exploded result says this, "The vehicle is destroyed." So as soon as the vehicle is considered being destroyed is when the necron rule is triggered. After re-reading everything a few times the argument stems from the nightscythe going from a fast skimmer to a flyer without changing some wording. If it was still a fast skimmer there wouldn't be an argument. Is the crash and burn rule an exception to the vehicle rules or used in combination with them.

The biggest question is when is the flyer considered being destroyed? If it is after it crashes to the ground (which I consider it being destroyed at this point) I will take the hits but if it is considered being destroyed as soon as it reaches 0 hull points or you roll an explode result per the rulebook then the necron rule triggers and they go into reserves.

[Nabterayl]

I think Foreigner has a point that at least some of the events do not occur simultaneously. You can't have "survivors" (Crash and Burn) or "Surviving passengers" (Explodes!) unless the hits, at least, are resolved before the placement of models (Crash and Burn) or the disembarkation (Explodes!).

But even if everything did happen simultaneously, so what? Events that occur simultaneously, with the same triggering event, are still separable from each other. There is no reason to think that conceptually separable events, by virtue of occurring simultaneously and having the same triggering event, turn into a single event.

You are right that, sometimes, the entirety of a vehicle destruction event is preempted by a codex. Ramshackle is rightly cited as one such event. But "If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark" is not language equivalent to "If a Trukk suffers an Explodes result on the Vehicle Damage table or is Wrecked as a result of
being reduced to 0 Hull Points, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects" (emphasis mine).

[Uncle Nutsy]

I think their intent with the rule was that they would be originally on the transport and use the gate to phase through the vehicle onto the battlefield. Then when that vehicle crashes, they instead phase out from the vehicle to the next closest gate. which in this case would be your board edge.

So in this case I believe RAW and RAI interface with each other well.

[Foreigner]

I highly doubt that GW wrote this rule to severely cripple the necrons if their transport is destroyed. I do argue the timing of when a transport is considered destroyed. Also on page 74 of the BRB under wrecked vehicles it states this, "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 hull points is immediately wrecked...The vehicle is destroyed, and the crew is slain." First sentence of exploded result says this, "The vehicle is destroyed." So as soon as the vehicle is considered being destroyed is when the necron rule is triggered. After re-reading everything a few times the argument stems from the nightscythe going from a fast skimmer to a flyer without changing some wording. If it was still a fast skimmer there wouldn't be an argument. Is the crash and burn rule an exception to the vehicle rules or used in combination with them.

The biggest question is when is the flyer considered being destroyed? If it is after it crashes to the ground (which I consider it being destroyed at this point) I will take the hits but if it is considered being destroyed as soon as it reaches 0 hull points or you roll an explode result per the rulebook then the necron rule triggers and they go into reserves.

This is not true either. First and foremost, its not like this rule only affects Necrons. Every army with a transport flyer is harmed when it crashes with a unit embarked. And its not like necrons only have 1 transport option either. Last I remember, the ghost ark not only is a selectable option, but a pretty good unit.

The nightscythe rule says that when the vehicle is destroyed, the embarked unit does not disembark but instead enters reserves. There is no indication that this changes any other aspects of what takes place when the vehicle is destroyed. It changes how the unit disembarks, that's it.

Edit: I keep seeing people making the argument of "but they're teleporting from somewhere else, backstory, something about not being on the plane, portals, etc" but thats not how the rules work.

The rules simply care if the vehicle is a transport, which it is. Thus, the following occurs. Arguing RAI is both incorrect (only the written rule matters) and incorrect. It is impossible to determine the intent of the rulemaker. What we can interpret is what is written.

[Tynskel]

as I have pointed out before, the codex rule does not state that the rulebook continues. Furthermore has a rule that clearly interrupts the normal rulebook, therefore it replaces the rulebook events.

On top of that, it fits with the fluff, of which GW has consistently sided with its FAQs and phrasing of rules.
Even further, this does not interfere with another mechanism in the book. There isn't a major rule that 'must' happen later (for example, ramshackle must eventually return the to rulebook, or write its own version of disembark) that the Necron rule prevents.

this is a simple way to apply the rule, it follows the fluff, and it follows the construction and precedent of previous rules. I simply can't justify trying to add complexity to this set of rules by having models get injured that don't even exist on the board. If they lose 25% of the squad, do they run away while on reserves? Do they enter the board only to take a morale check?

Absolute redonkulous to add such complexity when there is a simpler way to handle the rule, not interfere with the rules of the rulebook, and be entirely consistent with rules that replace 'x' with 'y'.

[Nabterayl]

No offense, man, but that sounds like just stopping the argument. Unless you have an argument as to why the codex "interrupts" the rulebook, as opposed to replacing one of its events (or, if you prefer, "interrupting" the rulebook only to go back later) - and I can't imagine at this point either of us convincing the other, having apparently run out of arguments - I suggest we both bow out of this.

[JMichael]

I think, as some others have mentioned, that the key word is 'disembark'. When a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes the unit is placed, it does NOT disembark. (p81 under Crash and Burn) This was the same in 5th edition. Thus they must take the hits and the survivors be placed.
Due to not disembarking the Necron rule for those units being placed into reserves never comes into play (in this case).

I believe that this is very deliberate and effects more that just Necrons (for example if an Assault Vehicle Explodes!).

There are so many issues when trying to interpret rules as fluff that I don't even try anymore. After all how could we possibly understand what happens to the wormhole gateway when one end of it is destroyed violently? Just as easy to explain that the explosion of the gateway tech causes an instability that sucks the awaiting troops through.

>>>edited to add bold emphasis and clarify wording<<<

[Denied]

I just want to thank everyone for their feedback and the very well versed arguments from both sides. I truly appreciate it. I have also emailed this to the new GW shrine of knowledge section in hopes that I eventually receive an answer or get an FAQ update with it. I will of course update people if I hear anything back. As it stands my local gaming group (200+ member's strong son!) have also been discussing this and it appears the arguments between that group and the player base here are the same. Two camps one siding with Nabterayl's interpretation (same as mine) and one siding with Tynskel's interpretation. We have had people even post references to an 11th company podcast that touched on the discussion and a frontpage BoLS article that talked about it. I don't want to come off as too biased in this, but it appears to me the majority of people siding in favor of Necrons not taking wounds have been from Necron players (at least in my gaming group) and as per logic the people saying they do are traditionally non-Necron players. From all the information I have taken in I have to say that I think Foreigner had the best response to this in one of his earlier posts where he went through the "Keywords" to look at. As a TO for local events I wanted to come to a conclusion on this for our local scene as it will inevitably be brought up in our of our events. Baring anything from Games Workshop themselves I would have to say as per RAW in any events I run for our local scene I will be siding with Nabterayl. Thank you again everyone for your well versed discussion and I do hope this topic find some resolution in the future (preferably soon).

[jgebi]

Can I just add something to this, necron everything phases out meaning that the whole template thing makes no sense with necrons, also the necrons use portals for well every thing so I would just say they never joined the battlefield so they couldn't have been in their to stat with.

[Denied]

Can I just add something to this, necron everything phases out meaning that the whole template thing makes no sense with necrons, also the necrons use portals for well every thing so I would just say they never joined the battlefield so they couldn't have been in their to stat with.


Again man it has been stated this is strictly a RAW discussion, RAI or fluff do not apply in any of these situations. This is all about wording and how the rules system works, yes often the rules and the fluff do not align it happens but as far as the game goes we refer to the written rules not the fluff.

[Tynskel]

Again man it has been stated this is strictly a RAW discussion, RAI or fluff do not apply in any of these situations. This is all about wording and how the rules system works, yes often the rules and the fluff do not align it happens but as far as the game goes we refer to the written rules not the fluff.
That's something that I disagree with. 5th and 6th editions have been a march toward the fluff = rules.
Also note, it doesn't matter what necron or non necron players think about the rules. It is about what makes the most sense. Mechanics wise, it can be shown that one way works without a problem, and another actually causes more problems.

The keyword idea is along the right track, however, one still needs to reconcile how the rulebook handles situations like this one. There is no strict order of operations for this rule, and because of this, it means that lumping of rules must occur. If there is a change in the grouping by a codex, then the entire group must be replaced. That is what he Necron Codex does. There is no way to deal with the negative issues otherwise.

No one has answered my question about reserve morale.

[jgebi]

I like the tasty fluff it makes the bland bits taste like blood sweet and souls

[Tynskel]

I like the tasty fluff it makes the bland bits taste like blood sweet and souls

Hahahah!

[Denied]

That's something that I disagree with. 5th and 6th editions have been a march toward the fluff = rules.
Also note, it doesn't matter what necron or non necron players think about the rules. It is about what makes the most sense. Mechanics wise, it can be shown that one way works without a problem, and another actually causes more problems.

The keyword idea is along the right track, however, one still needs to reconcile how the rulebook handles situations like this one. There is no strict order of operations for this rule, and because of this, it means that lumping of rules must occur. If there is a change in the grouping by a codex, then the entire group must be replaced. That is what he Necron Codex does. There is no way to deal with the negative issues otherwise.

No one has answered my question about reserve morale.

They may want the game to be more fluffy, but sorry rules are rules man and RAI does not apply to these situations.
Also I am sorry but I don't believe there is a problem with the unit taking wounds. The way I see it is Leadership test would not be required as they are something that only effects units on the board so you would auto pass those. Similar to units in transports do not take leadership test for loosing units (ie when a Company Command Squad with a bunch of plasma guns overheats in their tiny chimera and half the unit vaporizes themselves they are not forced to take an LD test) As for We'll Be Back I believe it is is spelled out in the reanimation protocol rules that you do not get a We'll Be Back Roll as this is something that happens at the end of the phase and you place counters next to the models that are on the board. Additionally I know someone felt this is crippling the Necrons, but I don't believe that as there are other options for Necron transports. It is a choice you make when using a Night Scythe.

[Tynskel]

wait, RAI or RAW?
Point the the rule that states you do not take a leadership check...
By default, you are using RAI. You don't know what to do, and you 'think' the rules should be applied in a certain way.

That's the fallacy in RAW. That's why it is better to be consistent in the application of the rules. This situation is a replace 'x' with 'y' situation, and there are multiple examples of this in the rulebook and situations with the codexes. It is better to choose a rules convention and apply that consistently than to be "it's a bit of a wibbily wobbly timey wimey thing".

Then the debate becomes, which method leads to the best application. A measure of the success of that application could be causing the least amount of hiccups. I like that metric, because it is a clear and concise null hypothesis.

[Demonus]

I am of the opinion they do not suffer wounds as they are never inside the vehicle at any time. I am a necron player. I will however gladly 4, 5, 6 it with an opponent that disagrees until a definitive yes they do or no they dont is released.

[Tynskel]

do you 4+ the leadership check, too? ;)

This is something I don't understand: why do TOs rule on a rule like this one? The rulebook, RAW, has a 4+ anyhow.

There's one thing when it is obvious: do you have LoS or not?
But this is different, and since the rulebook, by 'RAW' has a 4+ mechanism, why are TOs not using that... or is it because it is not 'RAW'?


Sounds like 'RAI' to me...

[Denied]

The reason TO's do not like to use the 4+ system is because running a tournament requires a level of consistency to be fair to players. If in a tournament or a a game a rule is disputed and the TO is forced do to the vagueness of the rule to resort to a 4+ then do they accept that aspect for all tournaments/ games going forward or is the player allowed a chance in the next game of the same tournament or the next tournament under the same TO to attempt the same 4+ roll. In either situation you are being unfair to their opponents as the rules are changing for them every time they play this person. As a TO it is your job to interpret the rules and make a firm ruling on a subject preferably prior to the event. My gaming group is large and we have several TO's in our local area, we have several tournaments through out any given month (often one a weekend at different local stores). Because of this it is good to have an overall judging on a rule prior to an event that way players can approach situations amicably. Tynskel I am sorry but it appears you are starting to get a little over emotional about this discussion I would ask that we please try to approach things from a neutral aspect and check emotions at the door. If this is not the case I apologize for assuming it.

I agree there is an unfortunate amount of wibbly wobbly that is forced due to the RAW of the rule, but you have to concede that there is clearly an order of operations and the the wording of the Necron Night Scythe rule only effects the act of disembarking which is after the wounds are taken.

[Tynskel]

Wait, a level of consistency? What are you talking about: a 4+ is quite consistent. At any given moment you have a 50% chance of something going your way. That is something that can be planned for. Just like assault moves of 2d6 can be planned for, or do you change the assault rules too? Wait, might as well change the shooting, because some armies hit on a 4+ as well.

Even then, you are 'RAI' at the tournament.
where is there emotions?
I am pointing out flaws in your arguments, that is no sign of emotion.

No, there is no order of operations in the destruction of the vehicle. There are 'keywords' but they are all activated at the same time. Hence, replace 'x' with 'y' is the 'RAW' solution.

The rule doesn't state: 1st do a, then b, then c. It just states, a, b, c happen. That is event B. Event A is the vehicle is destroyed. Necron codex replaces event B with event B'. Ramshackle does the same thing: Event A becomes event A' which then activates event B.

[Denied]

The rule doesn't state: 1st do a, then b, then c. It just states, a, b, c happen. That is event B. Event A is the vehicle is destroyed. Necron codex replaces event B with event B'. Ramshackle does the same thing: Event A becomes event A' which then activates event B.


You're right it doesn't give you an itemized check list because it is not required to via the keywords used to define the order in which the actions are taken. Yes there is an order of operations it is just not as clearly defined as you would like. Additionally as stated prior if you want to replace the rule then Necron flyers don't scatter and wound units under a blast marker as well. In both arguments there has to be an amount of change to the way things are done. My argument is that as per the BRB's wording and the Necron codex wording it appears to not be a full replacement, but rather a changing of a specific action within the rules for Crash and Burn. Until this is addressed by Games Workshop and there is a change to the overall effect of the rule itself this is how it should be played.

At this point Tynskel we are just restating things over and over again. This will eventually turn into a futile effort as there is no strong basis I can recognize for why the Necron's do not take the wounds and you refuse to accept the order of operations as being clearly defined by keywords. There is no point in me arguing with you, but if I ever see you in a tournament I play it this way and I will be using that ruling in any tournaments I run.

[Tynskel]

bwahah!
Everyone thinks that the vehicle doesn't scatter if somehow the results to the passengers are not resolved. I didn't know that the passengers had that kind of power. Oh no, does vehicle doesn't scatter if there are no passengers on board? No!

Event A = vehicle is gone
Event B = passenger results.

This is why I keep telling you that the actions in B happen simultaneously, but A and B are different events. The result of event A does not effect event B. Only the results that lead to event A cause event B.

I keep telling you: the keywords do not imply order of operations. They just state that a, b, and c occur. Not the order. They all occur because of event A. The vehicle has exploded. Now activate event B. Necron codex interrupts and has clear rules conflict: Necron codex overrides rulebook.


Furthermore, you still have not resolved the leadership question, or is this another 'TO' decision? Where do the 'TO' decisions stop and the rulebook begins?

It is so very important, as a 'TO', to be consistent in your application of the rules.

[Denied]

See what you are doing there is arguing one way when it favors you then and the other if it does not your implication is to replace the rule well then the entire rule is one large lump since according to you there is NO order of operations. Therefore you have to also replace the scattered vehicle rule. You can not have it both ways if that is your argument.

[Tynskel]

no, because the rules for the vehicle do not apply to the passengers. That's what I find fallacy with that argument. There is no order of operations, but there are two events!
Basically, you are saying that a different unit cannot charge because the passengers could not get out on the other side of the board.

[Denied]

The arguments you are making do not work both ways. You can't state that there are two separate events, but not a clearly defined order of operations then because it is not itemized. My point is the two actions then are not clearly defined as separate actions according to your logic. This is a clear case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. If there are two actions then according to your statement they need to be defined as two separate actions pertaining to both the vehicle and then the occupancy. As well as a clear itemized order of operations for those actions. I agree there are two actions occurring and this is defined by the use of KEYWORDS, but if you agree with that then you have to concede there is a clear order of operations via those same keywords and the unit then suffers the Str 10 hits.

[Tynskel]

that's really silly. There are two different targets for the keywords. But there is no order of operations. I still can't figure out why you think there is an order of operations when there is just a list of keywords.

Therefore all events happen at the same time. However, the Necron Codex conflicts with what happens to the passengers, therefore replaces the event that happens to the passengers.

Example of order of operations: see begin assault
1) pick a unit
2) activate
3) overwatch
4) roll assault
5) next unit.

Then there is an order of operations within assault
units attack in initiative order.

The rule for the flyer blowing up and what happens to the passengers does not follow this format at all.

However, that does not mean that they are all applied to the same thing. The flyer doesn't take a number of str10 hits and disembarks itself within 3" of itself? That's so silly!

[Denied]

In 40k, in-game effects must be resolved step-by-step, in order as written, to the best of their ability (i.e. if you have 6 1-wound models and 9 unsaved wounds, you must remove 6 models from the board, following the overarching rule of "from closest to farthest")

The rules for the destruction of a Zooming Flyer are a binary checklist as follows:
Crash-and-Burn:
Is the Flyer Wrecked or Exploding? If yes continue, if no, stop (herein referred to as "yes/stop")
Place the large blast template over the wreck, then scatter 2D6. Resolve hits as per standard blast resolution rules.
Is flyer a transport? Yes/Stop.
All models embarked take a S10 hit with no armor saves allowed.
Place models within 3" of blast template.
Crash and Burn is now resolved.

The Necron rule gives the following timing changes:
Is flyer destroyed (i.e. wrecked/exploded)? Yes/Stop.
Do not disembark; instead place models in reserve.
Night Scythe transport rule now resolved.

You have to complete as much of Crash-and-Burn as you can, up until a rule specifically tells you to ignore another portion of the rules. As written, the models do not disembark (and therefore aren't saved by the Night Scythe) until the blast template has been resolved and the models embarked take an S10 hit each.

Want to argue it from a fluff perspective? Good luck with that. Njal's LIGHTNING STORMS can't hit giant metallic machines flying high in the air. wub wub wub, fluff matters not.

Placing in reserve is a replacement effect; it puts in place an override of a portion of the "flyer destroyed" process, specifically when the models would disembark. If the S10 happened after models were placed as a disembark, then the Necrons would be safe.

This will be the last time I mention it. Good luck continuing your attempts to rewrite the rules but RAW has it defined sorry.

[Nabterayl]

Furthermore, you still have not resolved the leadership question, or is this another 'TO' decision? Where do the 'TO' decisions stop and the rulebook begins?

It is so very important, as a 'TO', to be consistent in your application of the rules.
Hey, man, back off. That last sentence is definitely rude. You're clearly not an idiot; you can see as well as anyone else why an event that wants to declare a winner would want everybody to be playing by the same rules, as much as possible. Even if a TO's call on a given rule is wrong, at least it affects everybody at that event.


I keep telling you: the keywords do not imply order of operations. They just state that a, b, and c occur. Not the order. They all occur because of event A. The vehicle has exploded. Now activate event B. Necron codex interrupts and has clear rules conflict: Necron codex overrides rulebook.
I guess I'm not out of arguments after all. I'll answer your Leadership question, and in return, ask that you answer one of my unanswered questions: why are you convinced that "event B," as you call it, should be treated as a single event? It sounds very much like you're saying, "The various things that occur to passengers because the vehicle has exploded occur simultaneously. One of those things is passengers disembarking. The necron codex says passengers are not allowed to disembark. Because one of the things that are supposed to occur to passengers is not allowed to occur, none of the other things are either." I'm sure you can see why that seems like fallacious logic.

As to your Leadership question, naturally, a unit that suffers 25% casualties from being embarked upon a destroyed Night Scythe must take a Morale test, and could therefore Fall Back. The situation seems to me not at all unlike that of units that were called upon to take Morale tests while embarked upon a transport in 5th edition. In both cases the call to take a Morale test is clear, and in both cases very similar questions arise: Can a model that is not on the board make a Fall Back move? If not, can a unit be "Falling Back" even if it cannot make a Fall Back move? Do we cease to apply a rule (e.g., Gets Hot!) simply because we cannot execute all of the possible consequences of that rule?

There is no good textual answer to the first two questions. I think the answer to the third, however, must be no. It is perfectly fine for the rules to lead us to indissoluble difficulties, questions to which the rules provide no guidance whatsoever. As we did in the case of 5th edition embarked units, we must simply apply what we can and make up answers when the rules provide no guidance.

[Tynskel]

hmmm... I don't think I need to back off that statement.
The 'TO' is saying they are playing 'RAW', and they clearly are not playing by 'RAW'. They are playing by some version of 'RAI'. Again, I ask for consistency: admit that you are not playing RAW, and get back to the core argument. How does someone apply a rules convention?
I think it is also a fallacy to say that not playing by 4+ is not playing the same rules: you are playing the same rules because you have the 4+ roll off. Seriously, no one plays the same game. Defining of terrain: no two people will treat the board the same way. So how are they playing the same 'rules'? They are using the same framework for rules, but they are not applied the same way.

The point I am making is that because there is no order of operations, you cannot determine whether when the passengers disembark, get hurt, take leadership checks (granted leadership is dependent on getting hurt). Because you cannot determine the order of operations, the rule is 1 complete rule with a series of keywords. The Necron Codex is one rule. You replace the entire wording of the one rule with the wording of another. That is ALWAYS how one applies the codex rules in a codex-rulebook dispute. The entire rulebook rule is tossed, and replaced by the codex rule, unless the codex rule states otherwise.

If you are already falling back and in reserve, wouldn't that mean you are destroyed? Or do you enter the board, to just run off the board? There is nothing to state that you do not take the leadership check.

[Nabterayl]

hmmm... I don't think I need to back off that statement.
The 'TO' is saying they are playing 'RAW', and they clearly are not playing by 'RAW'. They are playing by some version of 'RAI'. Again, I ask for consistency: admit that you are not playing RAW, and get back to the core argument. How does someone apply a rules convention?
"It is so very important" is not a polite statement. The only reason to include that clause is to indicate a tone that is, at best, sarcastic.

Also, I don't think you are using RAI correctly. RAI stands for Rules-as-Intended; you seem to be treating it as Rules-as-Interpreted. Denied is not saying, "I'm playing it this way because I think that's what Kelly meant." He's saying, "I'm playing it this way because I think that's the most faithful reading of the text." That is, naturally, an interpretation, but you can't read without interpreting. The RAW-RAI dichotomy is between an interpretation that is the most faithful to the text, on the one hand, and an interpretation that is most faithful to the perceived intent of the designer, even if not the most faithful reading of the text, on the other. Naturally both are interpretations.



I disagree. Simultaneity does not imply unity. You really think it does? What other things in the world work that way?

[QUOTE=Tynskel;254809]The Necron Codex is one rule. You replace the entire wording of the one rule with the wording of another. That is ALWAYS how one applies the codex rules in a codex-rulebook dispute. The entire rulebook rule is tossed, and replaced by the codex rule, unless the codex rule states otherwise.
That's ... just not true. A codex rule overrides to the extent, and only to the extent, that it "conflicts" with the rulebook. The only conflict present is that the rulebook says to disembark, and the codex says that passengers aren't allowed to disembark.


If you are already falling back and in reserve, wouldn't that mean you are destroyed? Or do you enter the board, to just run off the board? There is nothing to state that you do not take the leadership check.
You wouldn't be destroyed because you're only destroyed when you reach the table edge. You couldn't reach the table edge because you have no place from which to move. If somebody asks how far it is from a point not in space to a point in space, there is no good answer. Even "infinite" is too precise to be correct.

[Tynskel]

Yes, I am indicating sarcasm, because I do think TOs hide behind the 'RAW' even though they are actually not implementing RAW. Pretty much, ever. A good TO is there to stop the argument in a fair and impartial matter. 4+ is the mechanism by which the fair and impartial matter is executed. To state otherwise is not being 'faithful' to the text (besides, why would someone want to be faithful, that does not use deductive reasoning at all.)

The real world and warhammer are two different things. I think, trying to apply the real world to interpreting the rulebook is just a tool to cloud up what the rulebook states. In the case of the rulebook, there isn't a defined order for this rule: do you place the models first, then apply damage, or do you apply the damage and place the models. The Rule does not state what order, it just states that a,b,c occur.

I don't think that we are in disagreement here about how to apply the codex 'overrides'. However, you cannot determine in this instance, the extent of event B. If there had been an order of operations (ie. first the models are injured, then disembark; conversely, first the models disembark, then the models are injured), then you could do a line replacement. However, the rule is not written that way, so one must replace all event B with event B'.

As for the leadership, you cannot state either. You could say that reserves has placed you at the board edge. Or you could state infinite, or you could state when you enter the board. In every instance, one has to simply make up the rules.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think that we are in disagreement here about how to apply the codex 'overrides'. However, you cannot determine in this instance, the extent of event B. If there had been an order of operations (ie. first the models are injured, then disembark; conversely, first the models disembark, then the models are injured), then you could do a line replacement. However, the rule is not written that way, so one must replace all event B with event B'.
I'm going to reverse myself here and agree with Foreigner that it is, actually. In both the case of Explodes! and Crash and Burn, we are told only to place "surviving passengers" or "survivors" on the board. That language plainly indicates that the hits occur before the placement.

In most cases that distinction will be academic, but not in all. Example: Suppose I have a transport with 20 models on it, which Explodes!, with room to place only 15 models. It would be incorrect to say that I lose 5 models automatically, and the survivors then take 15 hits. The correct order of operations is plainly to take 20 hits, resolve those hits, and then place the "surviving passengers," losing additional models only if they cannot be placed. "first the models are injured, then disembark" is the only accurate reading.

[Tynskel]

I disagree, you still cannot determine order of operation by the word 'survivor'. Survivor of what? The explosion? The impact into the ground? Two clearly different circumstances, and they clearly apply to this situation. The only other instance of taking such a high strength hit in similar circumstances of the rules is the Monsterous Creature falling from the sky. Is the monsterous creature taking the hit because it is falling, or is it taking the hit because it goes splat?

They are inherently survivors of the destroyed transport. Survivor is not a 'keyword'.

[Nabterayl]

If that were true, I would expect Wrecked to refer to survivors too, but it doesn't. I'll grant you that it isn't proof, but it is probative.

EDIT: Am I to understand that you, personally, believe that models should be placed first, removing models that cannot be placed, and the "survivors" should then take the prescribed hits?

[Denied]

I am sorry Tynskel, but at this point it appears you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. You have changed your argument several times when your current argument is refuted by logic you switch it again at this point you have come full circle back to your A, B, C argument and the statement that survivors does not imply a order of operations. It clearly does as stated by someone prior you can not have survivors of an event that has not occurred. The mention of survivors is contingent on the Str 10 wounds and therefor it occurs prior to disembarking.


Edit: I agree over all both rulings are not adequate, but as it stands in the text the unit taking the Str 10 wounds is the closest one to RAW and how it should be played. It clearly requires an FAQ to answer it and I highly suggest the membership of this forum email Games Workshop requesting one.

[Tynskel]

EDIT: Am I to understand that you, personally, believe that models should be placed first, removing models that cannot be placed, and the "survivors" should then take the prescribed hits?

No. I am stating that I cannot determine the order of operations, and therefore I am forced to treat the entire rule as one event.



As for denied.

Since when have I changed my argument? I have not changed my argument at all.
Survivors of what? Tell me what is the survivor of? The explosion? Falling from the sky? You cannot determine from that sentence what they have 'survived'. You are making an unsubstantiated claim that the str10 has happened first and that the models 'survive' that. You cannot determine that from this phrase.

The rule does not state that they are hit by an explosion. It does not state that they are hit by the 'splat' at the end.

[Nabterayl]

No. I am stating that I cannot determine the order of operations, and therefore I am forced to treat the entire rule as one event.
I don't mean in the case of a destroyed Night Scythe. Suppose you just have a regular old transport that Explodes! and doesn't have room for the entire unit pre-explosion casualties. Which would you do first, place what models you can and make the survivors take hits, or make the survivors take hits and then place what models you can?

[Tynskel]

That's a good question.
I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I am pretty sure the 'explode' result for ground vehicles/skimmers is well defined. I am not sure if you can apply this to this situation, however, because I am pretty sure the language for flyers is substantively different than from the normal rules. Even then, for example, I am pretty sure the explosion is treated differently between open-topped and closed vehicles, too.

This does bring up a point: If you were to argue this on similar rules, you could be pretty sure this follows the same line of reasoning that the monsterous flyers going splat explains the 'high strength'. If that is the case, the models have already disembarked...

[Nabterayl]

I think you would find it equally ambiguous. Here is the entire text of how Wrecked, Explodes!, and Crash and Burn affect passengers:


· Wrecked. The passengers must immediately disembark in the usual manner (see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 5". If, even by performing an emergency disembarkation, some models are unable to disembark, then any models that cannot disembark are removed as casualties. This does not prevent the rest of the unit frorn disembarking. The unit must then take a Pinning test. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

· Explodes ! The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP- hits equal to the number of models embarked. Resolve these as for shooting hits, except that the controlling player allocates any wounds caused. surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be; any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties. The unit then takes a Pinning test.

If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". Any model under the blast marker's fi.nal position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit. the Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.

(all emphases in the original)

As you can see, only Explodes! and Crash and Burn speak of "survivors" or "surviving." We also have good reason to believe that Pinning takes place last ("the unit then takes a Pinning test"). However, the only indicators that survivors take hits and are then placed are (i) the fact that they are listed in that order, and (ii) "survivors" of a Wrecked result are not referred to as such.

I certainly agree that you are right that this is ... less clear than it could be, let us say. But it's totally possible for a regular old ground transport to Explodes!, raising the dilemma of which we do first. I don't know if we can come up with a demonstrably correct answer, but it seems to me that if we believe that passengers take hits and are then placed in the ordinary case, we must believe that passengers take hits and are then placed in Reserve in the Night Scythe case (at which point we would have to make up rules for how to deal with Morale tests and Falling Back whilst in Reserve).

[Denied]

Okay at this point I feel like I should mention I have been checking GT FAQ's to see how they ruled on the matter. Since the holy grail the INAT FAQ has not been updated post the release of 6th edition I have checked out Feast of Blades and NOVA. Both of which have ruled they do not take the Str 10 wounds, and I believe this is out of a desire to not have muddling around with what happens with reanimation protocols and leadership rolls. I will be interested to see what occurs with the INAT though and how they go about it, since the old INAT FAQ says they do suffer wounds from an exploded result. Either way I really hope GW addresses this issue because it is obviously a terribly written rule.

[Nabterayl]

I'll insert the usual *****ing about tournament FAQs' place in the pristinely academic halls of the BoLS rules forum by reference. So inserted.

[Tynskel]

Insert the actual ***talking.

I do not use the INAT FAQ because it is the epitome of what I am talking about: inconsistent application of rules.

[Tynskel]

I think you would find it equally ambiguous. Here is the entire text of how Wrecked, Explodes!, and Crash and Burn affect passengers:


· Wrecked. The passengers must immediately disembark in the usual manner (see page 79), save that they must end their move wholly within 3" rather than 5". If, even by performing an emergency disembarkation, some models are unable to disembark, then any models that cannot disembark are removed as casualties. This does not prevent the rest of the unit frorn disembarking. The unit must then take a Pinning test. After this, the vehicle becomes a wreck.

· Explodes ! The unit suffers a number of Strength 4, AP- hits equal to the number of models embarked. Resolve these as for shooting hits, except that the controlling player allocates any wounds caused. surviving passengers are placed where the vehicle used to be; any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties. The unit then takes a Pinning test.

If a Zooming Flyer is Wrecked or Explodes, its flaming debris rains down on the battlefield. Centre the large blast marker over the Flyer - it then scatters 2D6". Any model under the blast marker's fi.nal position suffers a Strength 6, AP - hit. the Flyer is then taken off the board. If the Flyer is also a Transport, any models within suffer a Strength 10 hit with no armour saves allowed. Survivors are placed anywhere within 3" of the blast marker's final position and in unit coherency. Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties.

(all emphases in the original)

As you can see, only Explodes! and Crash and Burn speak of "survivors" or "surviving." We also have good reason to believe that Pinning takes place last ("the unit then takes a Pinning test"). However, the only indicators that survivors take hits and are then placed are (i) the fact that they are listed in that order, and (ii) "survivors" of a Wrecked result are not referred to as such.

I certainly agree that you are right that this is ... less clear than it could be, let us say. But it's totally possible for a regular old ground transport to Explodes!, raising the dilemma of which we do first. I don't know if we can come up with a demonstrably correct answer, but it seems to me that if we believe that passengers take hits and are then placed in the ordinary case, we must believe that passengers take hits and are then placed in Reserve in the Night Scythe case (at which point we would have to make up rules for how to deal with Morale tests and Falling Back whilst in Reserve).

I dig that argument. As I said before, something that is consistently applied is what I care about.
Absolutely why I do not use the INAT FAQ.

INAT FAQ = "it's a bit of a wibbily wobbly timey wimey thing"
Again, further supporting the argument that 'TO' are not using RAW.

[Nabterayl]

So ... do you have an opinion? If you and I were at the table and my trukk exploded, leaving room for less than 100% of the passenger models, do you know how you would treat it?

[Denied]

I find it funny that it took mentioning GT FAQ's to get you both to agree....

[Tynskel]

Well, we would treat it either way. As long as we applied the convention to all the rules, I'm fine with either way.

It isn't the mention of the GT FAQ that got me to agree, it was the tearing apart of all the applicable rules, and then coming up with a way to resolve the issue, using the rules, not some outsourced FAQ.

[Nabterayl]

Besides, Tynskel and I don't agree so much as stop arguing and sometimes find ourselves walking down the tracks of the same train of thought in companionable yet wary silence ;)

[Tynskel]

hahah! :)

Choo Choo! chugga chugga chugga chugga! Choo Choo!

[Learn2Eel]

Looks like we may finally have an answer to this question, going off the recently updated Necron digital codex.
From Faeit 212 (EDIT: Ah bugger it I'll just insert the quote):


If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit suffers no damage and is not allowed to disembark.

http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/changes-found-in-digital-codices.html

I'm guessing FAQs for all the codices are just around the corner.....

[Defenestratus]

Looks like we may finally have an answer to this question, going off the recently updated Necron digital codex.
From Faeit 212 (EDIT: Ah bugger it I'll just insert the quote):



http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/changes-found-in-digital-codices.html

I'm guessing FAQs for all the codices are just around the corner.....

There goes that whole "new balance philosophy" idea :P

[Demonus]

bout time this got clarified. i love FAQs. i get to use my "Ha Ha" voice to everyone who was wrong =P

[Nabterayl]

bout time this got clarified. i love FAQs. i get to use my "Ha Ha" voice to everyone who was wrong =P
Well, I agree it's about time it got clarified, but an amendment never shows which side was right. It may have been amended because the studio felt like the original rules as written went opposite the way it was amended to read, or because they felt like it was better to amend than answer in an FAQ.

[DarkLink]

GW regularly FAQs stuff against the most straightforward RAW interpretation, as in this case.

[Anggul]

I'm just glad that it makes sense fluff-wise. That really is the most important thing to me in the end. They could have jacked up the price by a little bit while they were at it though. :P

[Tynskel]

GW regularly FAQs stuff against the most straightforward RAW interpretation, as in this case.

I completely disagree. See the Tyranid FAQ. Almost every rule makes sense from a fluff point of view. I may not like it, but they are fluffy.

[Anggul]

I completely disagree. See the Tyranid FAQ. Almost every rule makes sense from a fluff point of view. I may not like it, but they are fluffy.

He said RAW, not fluff.