Do Necrons in Flyers Take Hits or Not?

Update: The rules for Necrons transported in Flyers were later changed/clarified: The contents do not take hits if the flyer is shot down. Article saved for posterity.

 

It's a simple question – Do Necron units inside a Nightscythe that is destroyed take any hits, or are they immune to the damage results from the new Flyer rules due to a rule from their own codex?

What I didn't originally realise is that there are at least SIX answers to this question in circulation, and that it is one of the most likely to cause arguments simply because the answer is so 'obvious' to players, regardless of which answer they've chosen.

Fortunately in the run up to the Australian Masters someone asked a very specific question, which means I can give a more useful and specific answer:
“SCP Yeeman: Anyone know how this tournament is ruling the Night Scythe casualty thing? Are the passengers taking hits or not?”

I cannot tell you exactly how GW thought their 5th edition rules would translate to 6th edition, or how you should play flyers at home, or what you should agree on before a pick-up game, but the above is a question that I can answer. And to be frank when it comes down to rules that fairly obviously need an FAQ, all I really want to know is how the tournaments I will attend will rule on them. First though, here are the rules and the various answers I have come across.

  • The Night Scythe has a transport capacity of 15. If the Night Scythe is destroyed, the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark, but instead enters reserve (when they arrive, they cannot deepstrike) (- Necron Codex Page 51)
  • 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 2D5″. 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 l0 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. – (BRB Page 81)

“Nightscythe Wormhole Gateways are functionally the same as Monolith Eternity Gates”

1) Necrons are never actually inside their Flyers, and do not take hits when the Flyer is destroyed and are not affected by the Flyer's Stunned or Shaken results.

2) Necrons are never actually inside their Flyers, and do not take hits when the Flyer is destroyed but are affected by the Flyer's Stunned or Shaken results.

3) Necrons are never actually inside their Flyers, and do not take hits when the Flyer is destroyed and are not affected by the Flyer's Stunned or Shaken results. Despite the fact that the Flyer is 'Empty', no other Necron unit can embark on a Flyer that has been 'allocated' to transport a different unit.

“Nightscythe are Flyer Transports that carry units inside them”

4) Nightscythes are functionally the same as any Flyer Transport except if one is destroyed, the contents are placed in Reserve and do not take hits.

5) Nightscythes are functionally the same as any Flyer Transport and if one is destroyed, any models within suffer hits, after which due to a rule in their Codex instead of being placed within 3″ of the blast marker are put in reserves.

6) Nightscythes are functionally the same as any Flyer Transport and if one is destroyed, any models within suffer hits, and then instead because being 'placed' is not the same as 'deploying', they are placed on the table as with any other unit.

(Just to be clear, I'd never heard answer 6 until last week and it is from a recent post on YTTH, but I am not the Matt who asked the question that generated it. Let me know if you have heard of any other ways Nightscythes have been ruled.)

The Australian Masters used the same ruling as the Western Australian Ultimate Masters, as did the ACT Masters. Explanation text is by TO Malignant.

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

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

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

This is the equivalent of answer number 5 above. It was not the first choice of the Necron players, but to the best of my knowledge no player changed army because of it, reduced the amount of Nightscythes, or reported that it had a big impact on the actual games (several Necron players got through the majority of their games without actually losing a single flyer).

This may not be the answer everyone is looking for, but in the absence of an official FAQ it is a specific answer to how the Tournaments I have attended have treated this rule.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

113 Responses to “Do Necrons in Flyers Take Hits or Not?”

  1. JesseS says:

    Not that it has ANY bearing on the rules but our in-house rule at the FLGS I play at it is that the unit inside takes the regular S4 hit of a normal transport being destroyed before being placed in reserve but not the (much harsher) flyer transport rules.

    We figure that, fluff-wise, this represents the models that didn't make it to the teleporter in time to escape the crashing ship.

    We figured this was a good balance between the intended rules as shown in the fluff, and the actual rules as written, which are much harsher on Necrons than other armies because if any models DO manage to survive the rest of the unit can't RP because it goes straight to reserves.

  2. MadmanMSU says:

    Love this post. Would have been nice if you had gone on to analyze what the impact of each of the rulings would be, but its great to see this issue being addressed.

    Can you do another one on the Bale-flamers issue?

    • Guruplant says:

      Ok may be dumb here but what’s the baleflamer issue.

      • clever handle says:

        Can a torrent weapon template be placed to allocate wounds to models out of the firer’s line of site.

        Folks who are dumb loom for all sorts of silly rules exploits – can a vector strike ever allocate wounds since the heldrake doesnt have los to anything it has flown over some argue the hits cant be allocated

        • clever handle says:

          sorry about the bad grammar. That was written on my phone…

        • Tarrasq says:

          As the rules are written the baleflamer can't allocate out of LOS. It's very cut and dry. However GW could at anytime declare the baleflamer as not being hull mounted. GW should clarify the mounting of every weapon on every vehicle (at least in the new codexes). No more default hull mounted.

          There is confusion on what position before or after movement a vector striking model determines the closest model in the target unit. The DE FAQ calls for random allocation for similar attacks you can use this as precedent. As far as los, Out of Sight doesn't apply here as the Vector Strike is is not a shooting attack.

          • clever handle says:

            I completely agree with you but only was mentioning the two rules questions that come up most frequently about the heldrake. And they often come up within the same thread.

          • Tarrasq says:

            Might as well do the leg work if we're going to bring it up :)

          • Sly says:

            "As the rules are written the baleflamer can't allocate out of LOS. It's very cut and dry."

            I don't think it's that cut and dry. The question is not as much whether wounds can be ALLOCATED, as whether they can be GENERATED. Remember, first you generate wounds based on how many models are hit. Then wounds are allocated based on closest to furthest, and in LOS… but there is no LOS requirement in order to generate the wounds. So if a squad has 1 model in sight, and you put the template to hit that model plus the 4 out of sight, then you're generating 5 wounds. You can only allocate 1 on the guy that's visible, but if it's a guy in Terminator armor, he has to make 5 saves.

            That seems pretty strange, doesn't it. Well, that's why there is confusion… because the rules say this, but it doesn't seem to make sense. However, there is no requirement that the template is placed in LOS, and the template rules say that models under the template may be wounded as normal… LOS only comes up after wounds are generated on the unit, when you start allocating them to models in the unit. Until that point, wounds are not really allocated to any model, thus LOS is irrelevant.

          • iandanger says:

            Best I can tell this is the correct interpretation, as the rules for template weapons say place the template, then "ANY MODEL fully or partially under the template is hit" (emphasis mine). It then says later that wounds are allocated per the normal rules, which means you generate the number of hits, roll to wound, then allocate based on closest + los, since you can never wound anything not in LOS (except with a few indirect weapons with specific exemptions)

  3. _Garnet_ says:

    I honestly don't see how a fair-minded person could come to any conclusion but #5. There's simply nothing in the Night Scythes' rules that even suggests the flyer's transport systems works any differently from any other flyer transport. Sure, the fluff up above says otherwise, but since when are wholly new rules invented based on what it says in the unit description?

  4. Valtiel says:

    Personally, I’d wager that if GW ever get around to FAQing it, they pick option 4. It seems like the only sane balance between fluff and rules, because frankly any rule that states the Necrons are not actually inside their transport is going to be far too complicated.

  5. Sly says:

    I agree with the ruling. The FAQ states that Necrons can re-embark onto a Night Scythe… if you can disembark from it and re-embark from it, why would you not be in it when it's destroyed? Regardless of the fluff answer, there is nothing in the rules that in any way implies that the Necrons are not embarked on the Scythe when it goes down.

    So, if they're embarked, the Crash and Burn rule says that they take the S10 hit, without mentioning disembarking or being placed on the table (until after the hit(s) are all resolved). Therefore, any rules that the Night Scythe may have that modifies how passengers may exit a destroyed Scythe, would not take place until those passengers have survived the S10 hits.

    The only ambiguous part of the rules is whether Placed =/= Disembarked, ie: whether the survivors are placed on the board or in Reserves.

    • Phase Assassin says:

      Fluff-wise they don't embark on the Scythe. The Scythe teleports them down to the field and can teleport them back up, but to their original departing point. They are not in the Scythe. By that point they shouldn't be taking hits from crashing and burning.

      But I digress. I use Nightscythes and when there is something on the field that can take them out relatively quick (interceptor and skyfire weapons) I just fly them super close to where my models have to be and disembark. If the Scythe explodes, all is good.

      I do wish they'd FAQ it so the embarked squad doesn't take hits because if this edition is "narrative" it only makes sense for them not to take hits. Honestly, sending the squad into reserves isn't always a good thing. What if you destroy the Scythe on turn 5 and the game ends? The squad counts as destroyed.

      • clever handle says:

        debris & flaming wreckage is sucked through the open portal & obliterates the necrons standing in queue to enter combat. There. Fluff explanation complete, rules dispute over.

        • Phase Assassin says:

          Turn on portal when needed and turned off while not in use. Fluffy counter. But I won't say anymore. It's really up to GW anyway.

          • J4br4 says:

            The entire argument above is a lovely example for the difficulties in gameplay when fluff starts leaking in.

            I realize it seems odd to have these superadvanced necrons teleporting onto the battlefield in the background stories, but not having rules reflect this in gameplay. However, the game is also about maintaining balance. If we are to believe all the background, three space marines could massacre entire IG companies. Something we would not like to see happen in the game.

            Personally, I love the warhammer 40k background, but when playing the game, me and my friends stick to the rules as writen. This may suck at times, but we can only really rely on what GW has put on paper (and perhaps FAQed). Interpretation from secondary sources (fluff) leads to holy wars ;)

          • Phase Assassin says:

            I just want to clear up that I agree with the ruling. I'm not saying I mind the current way the rule works out. I would like it to reflect the fluff, but it doesn't matter if it doesn't. It's a great flier anyway.

            So I am not trying to say go with fluff always. Just clearing it up.

      • Sly says:

        "Fluff-wise they don't embark on the Scythe. The Scythe teleports them down to the field and can teleport them back up, but to their original departing point. They are not in the Scythe. By that point they shouldn't be taking hits from crashing and burning. "

        Fluff-wise, I agree with you.
        Rules-wise, I read that they embark upon the Scythe and disembark from the Scythe. There are no rules that say otherwise. Therefore, they play the game as if they are embarked in a transport Flyer.
        Until GW writes rules that support their fluff better, it's all we can do.

  6. mr_darkness says:

    I really don't know. In my head, I feel it should be four. I think that is what they meant by it, but in terms of rules, nothing really refers to the point, so The arguments just go on and on.

  7. BaselessElm says:

    The way I see it is we have two events as simultaneous triggers-

    When a flyer is destroyed, the unit inside suffers hits.

    When a Night Scythe is destroyed, the contents are placed in reserve

    and so the way this interaction works is completely dependent on how you handle simultaneous events. We've been playing it so that when two rules have simultaneous triggers, the player whose turn it is decides the order of resolution. I could have sworn it was an actual rule, but I can't seem to find it; so now I'm thinking that maybe it's just a house rule that our group came up with…

    Assuming that the rule I described above isn't complete bullshit, this gives an obvious answer- the player whose turn it is decides whether the unit takes the hits- they can decide to either resolve the hits first and then send the unit back to reserve, or send the unit back to reserve and then resolve hits on what's inside (which at this point would be nothing). It means that generally speaking, the unit will take the hits, as generally planes will crash during the opposing players turn, and hence the person who just shot the plane will probably choose to damage the unit. If the plane crashes during the controlling player's turn (due to being killed by movement shenanigans or an interceptor gun) then the unit won't take hits, as the unit's owner will generally decide not to have their unit go down in a blaze of glory.

    Assuming that I'm right on that rule, that is…

    • MadmanMSU says:

      It is in the book somewhere. It also applies to the Necron Mindschackle Scarabs rule debate, and is currently the internet consensus on the issue (whoever has the current turn decides when the scarabs go off).

      • Anonymous says:

        Correct. If two separate events both occur 'at the beginning of the combat phase' such as mindshackle scarabs and challenges … the player whose turn it is decides which gets resolved first.

        • Ish says:

          Which is just ugly from a design standpoint, if you ask me. A set order of operations would seem much more elegant… otherwise, contradictory effects will happen each player turn as the two players, quite logically, have things happen in whatever order is most kind to them.

          • clever handle says:

            well, this rule appeared in fantasy 8th ed two years ago so……… they must like it. Remember, beer & pretzels not podiums & awards.

          • Ish says:

            Yeah, I'm actually more into WHFB than 40K and I despise tourneys. Ugly rule is still ugly.

          • Sethis_II says:

            I don't mind it so much actually, it means that you always have a chance of your cool stuff having an effect instead of always being shut down by nasty enemy tech e.g. Banshee Mask vs Whip Coils. When you charge, you get your tech. When you get charged, they get theirs. Seems better than "Coils > Masks every time" or whatever.

          • ish says:

            That's certainly the positive spin of it. I just like having a set order of operations… probably the only thing my mathematics teachers ever got me to like. ^_^

    • Alastores says:

      The fact that they are simultaneous doesn't matter.

      When A occurs, X+Y occur.
      While you may address X or Y first, both MUST occur.

      In this case of the Night Scythe, the unit MUST take damage – flier rules- and MUST be placed in reserve – Scythe rules.

      Ergo, barring a specific, written out statement that invalidates either X or Y, both happen, regardless of order.

      Now, in this case, this could either be a statement that the Necrons do not…or it could be a statement that units in reserve can never ever take any damage. The first is not the case. As for the second – I'm not aware of any rule that makes units in reserve invulnerable (there's a difference between nothing being given rules to target them and them being immune to hits).

      If no such rule granting blanket immunity to damage exists for the Necrons – then they both take the hit AND are placed in reserve, regardless of the order of events.

      • DarkLink says:

        Well put. If they're simultaneous, then the warriors must take damage because both damage and going into reserves happen.

        The rulebook also has a clear general sequence of events: 1) vehicle is destroyed 2) passengers take damage 3) passengers disembark. The Necron rule basically replaces 3, but absolutely nothing about the rule changes the fact that 3 happens after 2, and thus the warrior still take damage.

        And the claim that the unit is never actually embarked in the transport has no rules to back it up as far as I can tell, so unless someone can actually find a rule that could be interpreted that way that whole idea is complete bullshit.

        So at best, the unit takes damage and jumps into reserves at the same time, and at worst they only jump into reserve after taking damage. Either way, they must take damage. I don't see how anyone can actually read the rules and come to a different conclusion.

    • Suijin says:

      page 9:
      "At other times, you'll find that both players will have to do something at the same time. When these things happen, the player whose turn it is decides the order in which the events occur."

  8. Albert says:

    As I see it, a wrecked/explodes result first triggers the S10 impact, then comes the placement/disembarkment of the surving 'crons.

    It's kind of funny this argument has gotten so popular when you consider the small number of times in which it gets to be applied.

  9. Kevin says:

    In that case does a dread in a stormraven take a s10 hit when it crashes? If so which facing does it hit?

    • clever handle says:

      yes it does & current rules are unclear as to which side it takes the hit on.

      • Kevin says:

        Well if you don’t have a rule for which side it gets hit on, then how can you say it takes a hit. If we don’t have a facing for it, then there is no way to work out the damage.

        • Alastores says:

          He can say that because they've told us it does.

          They just haven't told us how.

        • DarkLink says:

          That's brilliant logic. The rulebook isn't explicit on how Perils of the Warp and Feel No Pain interact, so I guess if I take an Apothecary on my Paladins for FNP and stick Coteaz in the unit, and Coteaz suffers Perils, he doesn't actually take any damage and suffer Perils because the rules aren't 100% clear on how you deal with the damage. Thanks, I'm gonna go and piss all of my opponents with some troll-logic rules lawyering now.

          • Alastores says:

            Uh.

            It's not "Troll Logic" it's "GW sucks with its FAQs so we have to do the best we can".

          • DarkLink says:

            Claiming that, despite the fact that you explicitly take a hit when the flyer dies, you don't take the hit for some nonsense reason is just that, nonsense. You take the hit. Just because it's not clear which facing you take the hit on does absolutely nothing to change the fact that you did get hit. Just because GW can't write clean rules doesn't make Kevin's argument any less nonsensical. I was being sarcastic to point that out. If you're not sure what facing gets hit, guess and play it, but the hit doesn't automatically disappear.

          • Alastores says:

            Oh, you were replying to Kevin.

            Sorry, thought you were replying to me!

    • Albert says:

      The codex says that it gets a S4 impact against the the rear AV. In this case I don't think there's too much room for other interpretations – codex rule takes precedence over the rulebook

      • clever handle says:

        the two hits are not mutually exclusive. You take a S4 hit on rear armor & a S10 hit on an indeterminate armor facing (if you can't decide with your opponent maybe use a D3 roll-off?)

        • Albert says:

          I think they are mutually exclusive. The codex entry describes what happens to the Dread in the event of a destroyed/wrecked result, which is different to what the rulebook describes for the same event . That said, GW could have been clearer again.

  10. yazchar says:

    Sounds like a Imperial player gave this "answer"! The sad reality is we would not be having this argument if the rule was from a Space Marine codex, it would be assumed they wouldn't have to make saves.

    • Albert says:

      Where does this comes from? in the case of imperial flyers capable of transporting units (vendettas and stormravens) they take the S10 with no armour saves allowed. Period.

      • yazchar says:

        I know, you're right. My comment comes more from how fluff translates to rules. In general, Imperial players get fluff turned into rules on their behalf better than xenos I feel. Probably something that warrants a whole other discussion.

        • Albert says:

          Oh that. For good or bad (probably the later) GW approaches 40k as an imperial-centric game. Which is a pity,.

        • _Garnet_ says:

          I don't know that I'd agree with that. It's not as if modern xenos books don't have nice special rules; Reanimation Protocols/Ever-Living and Power From Pain are pretty solid fluff-to-rules transitions. And if they were really being fluff-accurate, Space Marines should have Fearless along with ATSKNF. And cause Fear, too. And they should probably all have Eternal Warrior. And Feel No Pain. And, and, and…

          • yazchar says:

            It's probably an old codex/new codex issue, like you're saying. We'll see what happens when the new Tau and Eldar codexes come out. Based on fluff, Vespid should have a better armor save, rending, etc. Kroot should be really terrifying and nasty and Fire Warriors should probably be ballistic skill 4, etc, etc…

            Albert is right currently, which is a pity, but perhaps that'll change, we'll hopefully be able to have a new conversation this time next year.

  11. ru486baby says:

    In little old Adelaide, we play it that that don't take hits.
    The argument is not based on how the flyer rules work / don't work it has to do with re-animation protocols.
    If the models are never placed on the table then you can never place the re-animation marker, never getting your roll.

    • Sly says:

      That's true, but why does that make you immune to the hits?
      "I can't use RP if I get killed by the Crash and Burn rules, so that means that the C&B doesn't apply to me!" …
      … How does that make sense?

      As a note, there is plenty of precedent for rules and wargear being rendered completely useless/irrelevant upon a change of editions.

      • Threadmiser says:

        The point is more of "the models are never placed" so they can't take hits if they aren't on the board. That's the general argument here. I assume the use of RP is to clarify whether models are placed or not, otherwise I'm a little confused.

        • Alastores says:

          That would apply to any unit in a flier. Actually, any transport.

          They take the hits BEFORE they are placed, so they aren't on the table to take hits at the point the hits are resolved.

          • Sly says:

            What he said. Units have to be placed in order to be targeted, but not in order for them to be destroyed, damaged, make saves, etc. If some rule somehow allocates wounds to a unit without targeting that unit, then there is no requirement for the unit to be on the table in order to take damage/wounds.

        • ru486baby says:

          yeah point being the rules don't cover placing markers or rolling for re-animation protocols in reserve.
          So by making the decision that the model take hits breaks the re-animation/ ever living rule.

          • Alastores says:

            No, it doesn't.

            It doesn't allow it to ever come up. That's different to 'breaking' it.

            A seperate question would be "Can Necron units in reserve benefit from Re-animation protocols", however.

        • DarkLink says:

          The rulebook explicitly states that models in destroyed transports get hit, and it explicitly says it happens before they are placed back on the table. If you actually read the rules, there's not much of an argument to be had here.

  12. Sokhar says:

    I just want GW to pick a direction and not give us some bullshit like option 5. If you want me to take hits, fine. Let me place my surviving models afterwards. If I don't take hits but go into reserve, awesome. But this idiocy of taking the hits but going into reserve is over the top. Its like the necron equivalent of Wiley E. Coyote where a necron plane explodes, warriors come tumbling out, crash to the ground, and two seconds later the "magic phase-out device" triggers and whisks away the mangled remains of the warriors, never to return. Just stupid.

    • clever handle says:

      the explosion & flying debris are sucked back in through the wormhole gateway & obliterate several of the necrons waiting in queue to jump onto the battlefield. Those who survive must footslog to the fight. Simple fluffy explanation offered.

    • Alastores says:

      Wait, you mean it's ridiculous that Necrons might actually be worse at something than everyone else? That maybe your Invasion Beam Rules Silliness might actually have a downside?

      Tough.

  13. Matais Yohansen says:

    Me and my friend independently came to the conclusion that option 5 was how it worked, given the current wording of the rules in question. Plus I personally figure (as a Necron player myself, mind you) that the Night Scythe is such a stupidly strong option in the codex right now, it's gotta have some drawbacks, and having the guys inside take hits if it crashes seems only fair.

    Because honestly, I don't see how you can have something as good as the Night Scythe and then be like "oh yeah, they also don't take the massive damage from crashing Flyers that other armies have to deal with."

    • DarkLink says:

      Yeah, the Night Scythe already ignores half the Flyer transport rules. I'd be plenty happy with just that, and I certainly wouldn't complain that it doesn't ignore all of them, like some Necron players here have (not you, but some others).

  14. Threadmiser says:

    Option 6 is pretty clearly mistaken as it ignores a codex specific rule, which still take precedence over the BRB unless something has changed.

  15. Jasonc says:

    Just as a heads up, I’ve been told at least one prominent player from a different state than my own (in the original top 10) didn’t attend because of this ruling.

    Not that I disagree with the ruling but it did have an effect.

    • clever handle says:

      it is probably for the best that this "prominent player from a different state" didn't attend. 40K is a game with an evolving ruleset, if you choose not to play because you feel slighted by a rules change…. power to you, I probably didn't want to play with you anyways.

    • DarkLink says:

      And if they rule a different way, they'll probably anger some other random player. If a player's enjoyment of the game is based on a single, somewhat obscure, loophole to exploit, it's probably a good thing if they don't show.

      • Jasonc says:

        Not sure what your point is but you seem a bit defensive.. My point was in response to matts comment that no one altered their list to his knowledge. If that’s a point to the defence of it being viable, it isn’t accurate when a top-5 player for masters declines as a result is it? Whether they should/shouldn’t have done so.

        • Matt-Shadowlord says:

          Thanks for posting that – it's news to me.

          Yes, if someone would drop out of a tournament specifically because of a ruling like this, it means the ruling is more important to some players than I had imagined.

          There may be other reasons why this player chose not to attend this out-of-state event though. In fact I hope there were other reasons too, otherwise considering how few NS got shot down over the weekend they may have over-reacted!

          • Jasonc says:

            Conversely my friend here in Sydney is bringing the same list to cancon, even though he doesn’t agree with the ruling (I don’t really mind one way or the other, raw they take hits, I expect it to be faqd the other way).

  16. BS11 says:

    Slippery slope indeed. This is the most dissapointing rules interpretation for me in 40k. Firstly for fluff reasons and not only the fluff in the rule but the codex entry as it talks about protecting the unit inside. I completely accept that rules > fluff, but when there is ambiguity in rules then shouldn't we rely on fluff to guide our interpretation?

    Next there is the rules themselves. As I see it it hinges on there being a strict definition of 'disembark' that is applied consistently throughout the BRB, likewise there is a strict definition of 'place' and that when the codex uses 'disembark' they meant that strict definition and not just 'unit gets out of transport' or some general and non-specific way. Frankly this only holds up if every term in the BRB has a strict definition and is applied consistently and we know this is not the case, e.g. See when a model is removed from the table or removed from play or removed as casualty.

    So we end up in bizarro 40k where we are now told that a rule in a codex written for 6th no longer applies or has any effect or worse still only half the rule applies. (That in itself is unbelievable)

    We as a community interpret ambiguous rules and the most obvious recent example of this is Garran not making purifiers as troops. Everyone or suggested that was the case because the rule referred to Garran and the codex entity was Castellan Crowe was laughed at and quite rightly too. Of course GW meant Crowe/Garran could take troops. BUT if we apply strict RAW all the time then…. (Which is my point)

    BS11

    • Alastores says:

      Right. So because Land Raiders reference that they protect troops, those troops should be immune to explosions.

      Because Fluff references three ravagers destroying an entire imperial guard tank company at once, any rule that prevents them from doing so it wrong.

      Should we rely on fluff? Hell no. Because GW's codexes aren't written from an unbiased point of view. They are written from the point of view of "This race is awesome". And that means that all the fluff is inherantly over the top.

      In this case – I genuinely cannot see an ambiguity in the rules. I think you are trying to force one. Units in fliers take hits. This is a statement of the rules. Necrons from Scythes go to reserve INSTEAD OF normal deployment if their transport is destroyed.

      The flier rule does NOT state "Deploy the unit on the table and then it takes".
      It states "they take".

      Ergo, it does not matter whether they are in reserve or not. They take the hits, because that's what the rule requires you to do. Being in reserve is irrelevant, because they take the damage before you ever resolve where they go.

      Process:-
      1:- Flier is destroyed.
      REference rules for troops being transported in a destroyed flier.
      2:- Troops in a destroyed flier take a S10 hit.
      Resolve S10 hit.
      3:- Deploy remaining troops.
      Necron specific rules kick in – they cannot be deployed as normal and are instead placed in reserve.

      There's no inconsistency UNLESS you try to bring fluff into it. It's not a case of a typo – as with your example. It's not a case of "Well, it could go either way, but fluff implies they mean…".

      There's really no sensible way to interpret it except that method. You follow all the rules, replacing resolutions as needed. Nothing in the Necron rule says they don't take damage, which means they take damage.

    • _Garnet_ says:

      "I completely accept that rules > fluff, but when there is ambiguity in rules then shouldn't we rely on fluff to guide our interpretation?"

      But there is no ambiguity. There's no rule, at all, in the Night Scythe entry that even suggests that Necrons being transported by it don't take Crash and Burn hits if the transport is destroyed. There's the fluff suggesting otherwise, but the fluff and the rules are often in conflict, an irreconcilable result of not wanting to play a game of Movie Marines, and new rules aren't simply invented whole-hog to make the fluff work on the tabletop.

    • DarkLink says:

      Read the actual rules. The rulebook explicitly states that the unit in the flyer takes the hits, and only after the hits are resolved do you place the unit on the table. The codex rules only state that instead of placing them on the table, you place them in reserves. That does absolutely nothing to change the fact that they get hit first. And you're literally making up rules if you think the unit isn't "inside" the transport and thus doesn't take the hits. No rules say that, and if you're trying to argue that then my Grey Knight Warding Stave's 2++ works outside of assault. And all of my guys get Staves. For free.

  17. Scuzgob says:

    this is why i get my guys out of the scythes as soon as possible. or run them empty.

    oh hell with it, everybody on the table takes a S10 hit.

  18. warboss redtoof says:

    In the Ork codex, when a trukk is destroyed, you roll to see what occurs because a specific rule says this happens. Imo, if a scythe is destroyed, that effect should similarly occur, after which the RP rules apply. Logically, no fluff beats a flaming crash inferno mess, they take the hits.

  19. Tift says:

    So…you guys realize that when GWS finally faqs this that option 4 will be the way they choose right? Think about it, why would they engineer a system fora teleported that works after the guys take a hit.

    Do you really think ward wrote a unit that double penalizes itself? Or do you think it is more likely that ward intended this rule to be an advantage to the unit. I think the people arguing for taking the hits are being a bit unreasonable. I think the roi is pretty clear but once again becAuse of lack of unity in the GWS writing staff raw goes against roi.

    Im surprised that this even came up. Why would anyone assume that the unit would have a built in teleported that handicaps rather than assists the unit inside. Pretty silly stuff.

    Before anyone quotes the raw excuses, I already know how the raw is written. This is the same situation as the harlequin mess up where they have harlies both old an new night fighting. Just a temporary mess up that will be cured in time.

    • Alastores says:

      The argument "Matt Ward only writes rules that are advantageous" doesn't function as an argument.

      'You are suprised it came up' – Why? Every other flier in the game damages the units inside it because of crashing…including the fliers that HAVE BUILT IN RULES for jumping out of them.

      Why exactly can Grey Knight terminators not jump out of the back of a crashing Storm Raven? The rules for the flier clearly state that jumping out is possible. But the rules for destroying it do not allow it, whatever the fluff says. So I'm sorry, but "Why would Necrons do this?" isn't an argument – there are fliers that we KNOW allow quick insertion that do not allow for mitigation of the damage, so fluff isn't an argument.

      The rules clearly state they take hits.
      Fluff doesn't make much of a difference, because the Stormraven and the Valkyrie should also have mitigatition if it was going to matter.

      Frankly, everyone arguing otherwise is blinkered.

      • Incubus says:

        What fluff you guys talking about?
        It is stated under Transport (hello) & access point, not in the fluff part on the top.
        That is why each army has it's own codex, in all previews editions it has been stated that codex takes
        precedence.
        It clearly says they are not allow to disembark. This is fluff Necs are a race ahead of all other races,
        why not think that it is a fail save deviced tha allows them to escape harm.
        All the transports are not the same, all transports carry terminator,dreads or can assault when they move
        with frags.
        So call it fluff, Ok that is why each army has a little twist.

      • Sokhar says:

        Why can't Terminators jump out? Because the crash and burn rule is stupid? First time I read it I thought "Why the hell can't jump infantry inside a Storm Raven make some sort of controlled descent, instead of terminal velocity faceplant?"

    • Sly says:

      "Do you really think ward wrote a unit that double penalizes itself? Or do you think it is more likely that ward intended this rule to be an advantage to the unit."

      At the time that Ward wrote it, the only advantage that the rule gave was that the Warriors would come in from Reserve rather than being placed at the wreck. There were no Crash and Burn rules to protect the squad against. If there had been, and he meant for the rule to protect against that, perhaps the Scythe would cost another 10-20 points?

      You cannot say that a rule written in 5th edition when C&B did not exist, was meant to protect against another rule that did not exist at the time. Not without a FAQ specifying this.

    • Suijin says:

      So they are going to GI Joe it? Meaning they jump out of the plane unharmed a split second before the missle hits.

  20. incubus says:

    Play the Game for fun and think about making the game enjoyable, for you and your opponent.
    That is why some times I don't want to be bother playing some of this guys.
    I know it is impossible for some, have to hate and win at all cost, rules lawyers, fine play a game your way then play another the other way and see if it makes a difference.

    Terminators can not pursuit, so you would think they react slow. (boom got hit)

    Instead the argument should be that the rules are not very clear.

  21. incubus says:

    Sorry

    Try to touch on to many topics at once.

  22. Listen_to_me says:

    Reading this thread is very frustrating. It's obvious that Necron units *take the hits* when the flier blows up, but why does everyone glaze over the fact that *they don't go back into reserves*??????

    i.e.- the difference between #5 and #6

    #6 is correct, people!!!!!!!!

    Quite simply, the rule states that survivors are placed within 3". Bam. So you do. The *only* time the codex rule trumps, allowing the unit to go into reserves, is in the case that you do so *instead* of *disembarking*. So if the flier isn't zooming- go for it. Don't take the hits and go back into reserves. But if the flier zooms, the rule in the codex means absolutely nothing. NO DISEMBARKING OCCURS. NONE. THERE IS NO DISEMBARKING. SO YOU PLACE THE UNITS DOWN JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

    So so frustrating.

    • _Garnet_ says:

      "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." – Codex: Necrons, p. 51

      The rule's wording makes it clear that it is a command, not an option. If the Night Scythe is destroyed, you can not disembark normally, regardless of preference; you are required to place the unit in Reserve instead of using the normal disembarkation rules. Not only that, but the Night Scythe lacks Hover, meaning it is always zooming. And the Invasion Beam added in the FAQ specifically works in the Movement phase, not the shooting phase, so that's no help either.

      Models embarked in a Night Scythe take the hits, because there is no rule saying they shouldn't. Then they go into Reserve, because there is a rule saying they must.

      • Darkjediben says:

        Nope, sorry. If you guys wanna play at being RAW-lawyers, that's fine, but you have to follow that all the way through.

        "the embarked unit is not allowed to disembark"

        Huh, that's interesting. Because in 6th ed, units don't disembark when the flier is destroyed. They are simply placed at the crater.

        Being placed does not conflict with "Are not allowed to disembark". There is nothing that overrules the BRB or conflicts with it, so units get placed at the crater if they're also taking S10 hits. You don't get it both ways.

  23. abusepuppy says:

    To add yet another option to the list for strict RAW interpretations: the Crash and Burn rules do not say that they override the normal transport rules for when a vehicle is destroyed. So you can make a valid argument that an exploding Night Scythe does a S4 hit to everyone on board, a S10 no-armor hit to everyone on board, and then places them on the table.

    Eight and counting!

    • Sly says:

      I like this one. You SHOULD get out of a flying transport soon as you reach the battlefield, because if its engines get shot off… it doesn't stop in place so you can get out. It falls, and you with it. Let's make Flyer transports more dangerous to their inhabitants so that it's more dangerous to sit in them for a whole game and get out only to contest at the end.

      And I'm not even being sarcastic.

      • _Garnet_ says:

        Completely agree. It's not as though it's especially easy to shoot down a Flyer nowadays; in the unlikely event that not only does a hit go through, but it penetrates, and rolls up Explodes on the damage chart, you've -earned- that double-unit-kill. As it stands, flyer transports are incredibly difficult to hit, reasonably well-armoured (AV11 when you only get to really use 1/6th of your heavy weapons is quite reliable), immune to Alpha Strikes, always get to make their first move unmolested, usually have solid guns that will give them a good first strike, and always get to shoot before the enemy can take advantage of them switching to Hover to drop passengers. -Some- kind of downside to these things would be nice!

        • clever handle says:

          a 200pt price tag for something that can realistically only have an effect on the game for about 4 turns, has drastically limited movement, can't score and (unless you're playing BA) can really only threaten a single target per turn….

          not terribly worried about them.

          • _Garnet_ says:

            Plenty of units will outlive their usefulness in under four turns, and flyers trade presence on the board turn 1 for always getting to take the first shot. Drastically limited movement? 18"-36" with no firing penalty, plus Hover for most flyers, pretty easily counterbalances the modest limitations flyers have on how they can move; a decent general, who pays attention to the lay of the board, shouldn't have trouble lining up four turns of shots. True, they can't score, but neither can anything from the HQ or Elites section, or any other vehicle, or in most missions any other Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices. As for only being able to threaten a single target per turn? What units are you playing with that they can reliably and consistently kill two or more units a turn?

    • rexscarlet says:

      lol, GREAT! best devils advocate you are;

      why not multiple sources for hits?

      5) Nightscythes are functionally the same as any Flyer Transport and if one is destroyed (how is it destroyed here), any models within suffer HITS (from source A and then from source B), after which due to a rule in their Codex instead of being placed within 3″ of the blast marker are put in reserves.

      Well done!

  24. BS11 says:

    I still don't understand why people argue for the night scythe's embarked unit to take hits, to me it is obvious they don't. If you remember in 5th this rule sucked: everyone else had their guys disembark and if unlucky lost one or two but were still on an objective and could still capture and contest. Necrons could end up 30+ inches away from where they needed to be and might have been off the board for a turn or two more. It is just obvious that this rule was meant to stop the unit inside taking a hit with the downside being that it had to go into reserves. It can still end up miles away from where they could be useful. This vehicle doesn't have a hover mode so the codex rule has to apply and the codex trumps BRB. It is only the people who are stuck in the strictest possible interpretation of RAW that say because the codex says 'disembark' and the BRB says 'place' then we play bizarro 40k and we can pick which part of a rule to apply or just ignore it completely place units or put them back in reserve.

    I now immediately disembark units as the NS flies on and never embark any units onto it during the game. Not worth the angst of arguing.

    I can go through pulling codex background, codex rules,BRB rules, break down the process step by step, etc but the site theruleslawyers.com does it better. I suggest you find their 'ruling' on it. In the end it comes down to whether you can accept that disembark can be a general term for getting off the vehicle or not.

    Finally I think that sometimes analysing the rules is a bit like farting: If you have to push too hard it's probably poo. Don't think too hard about this game it is supposed to be for fun and just accept how it is meant to be played.

    • Alastores says:

      Because the Necron flier has no replacement rule for the unit taking damage.

      It takes damage before they ever care where they end up. People argue they take hits because the rules say so.

    • _Garnet_ says:

      "I can go through pulling codex background, codex rules,BRB rules, break down the process step by step, etc"

      But, you don't. And you don't even link to the appropriate post on the rules lawyer site. Which, by the way, is a ludicrous site; it arbitrarily applies formal legal constructions to a discussion of non-legal rules, and unduly privileges the lawyers who run the site, because who else can actually argue the law? Silliness. So, are you really surprised when people here overwhelmingly reject your 'rules', which don't actually exist, in favour of the actual rules that are written?

  25. Ste Amigo 1 says:

    I dont understand the complication half of this.

    IF THE NECRON CODEX (which admittedly I have not read, apart from the above rule) DOES NOT state clearly in the rules (not background material) that the unit being transported is not embarked on the flyer then they do take the S10 hit.

    Similarly IF THE CODEX DOES state clearly in the rules that the unit being transported is not in embarked on the flyer then they do not take the s10 hit.

    To me that part is straight forward. The second part I thing is more tricky to understand, but as I would think that the unit goes back into reserve as stated by the codex rule.

    Again I will say that I do not own/have read a necron codex, so there may be more information that I have overlooked. I was just using th info to hand.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress
`