So, I think I'm going to be facing a monolith for the first time, and I'm bit apprehensive, but that monologue belongs in the Armylist/tactica section so here's my question:

When a monolith deep strikes, it forces units that would be under it to move correct?

There is nothing that bars you from rotating say, vehicles, so that their armor faces are re-directed to deal with this new threat is there?

thanks in advance

The rules do not state how or if the models can be turned when they're pushed out of the way by a DSing monolith nor do they really specify which player is in charge of moving the models. Although, it kind of reads (to me at least) as though the player controlling the Monolith is the one technically doing the moving. The only real guidance is that they have to be moved the minimum distance needed, which to me says that you don't get to turn the vehicle unless it is necessary to move it out of the way, and only then by the minimum possible.

Wouldn't that almost necessarily mean that one would have to, at all times, rotate the vehicle in question so that it's side armor is facing the monolith?

Lord PoPo wrote:Wouldn't that almost necessarily mean that one would have to, at all times, rotate the vehicle in question so that it's side armor is facing the monolith?

Just for your info, here's what the rule says:

"...move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."


I'm not getting the same interpretation as you. It seems as though you're looking at the 'movement' as though you're moving the model using the normal rules for vehicles, whereas I'm reading the rule more like, you have to actually MOVE THE MODEL out of the way the minimum distance needed.

By my interpretation I think you move the actual model the absolute least you have to, and that includes any kind of turning (because that's moving the model more than you have to). Under your interpretation since pivoting the model doesn't count as movement under the rules you're saying that you'd have to turn it as that would be the way to move it the absolute least.


I think you can function under either interpretation because the rules aren't explicit enough, so you may want to discuss it with your opponent ahead of time.

If you want to use the ruling we went with in the INAT, it is what I describe...move the vehicle the minimum distance needed to get it out of the way only turning it when absolutely necessary (because like impassable terrain is in the way, for example).

Remember that the monolith only moves models out of the way if it would be *destroyed* - which is only a 1, 2 on the mishap chart.

Imagine this scenario: You have a rhino(or a tau Devilfish, or Orkk Trukk) In Player 1's(P1 from now on) movement phase he Moves up the transport and lets out some troops. Those troops all get out of the back and left side of the transport. There is a Small unit of 5 Models on the Right hand side of the transport about 4" away. The monolith Deepstrikes down landing on top of the front 60% of the transport(but no other models) the shortest distance for the transport to be moved to clear the 'lith is going to displace it to the opposite end of the 'Lith.

Assigning some(arbitrary) dimensions because I do not know the actual dimensions of the models(accuracy does not matter for this example) we will make the 'Lith 7"x7", and the transport 5"x3". Since we have 3" of the transport inside the monolith, we cannot move backwards, nor t either side due to models blocking are way; we must move through the 'Lith. If we do not turn the transport we must move it 13" to clear the 'Lith. if we do turn the transport we only have to move it 8" to clear the lith; about 10" when you consider the swing. This is still less than 13" though so would be the most accurate way to do it.

It all depends on the situation though, if the unit in my example above was not blocking the back of the transport, but only the sides, then it could have moved straigh back 4" to clear the Lith, and that would have bee short going straight back than back and turning which would have been 6".

Nos i thought the Monolith would only take a deep strike mishap if it couldn't be deployed by landing in impassable terrain or off the board, as the unit rule Yakface quoted earlier means there will always be a 1" gap between the Monolith and any other model as you move models away to make room for it.

Per the wording of the Rule it is only "not Destroyed" when arriving on top of enemy models. Mishaps can still occur, but a "terrible accident" result on the Mishap table equals landing where you scatter; Misplaced and Delayed are still valid results.

It's all part of OCS; earlier editions did not have the mishap table, if you landed on any enemy you were gone.

"is not destroyed" is a side effect of being Ponderous. This does not mean the Monolith must be destroyed in order to invoke its special rule. A Monolith, similar to a Drop Pod, has special deep striking rules. This biggest difference is the Monolith doesn't suffer a mishap if it would land on other models: simply move the models out of the way of the Monolith.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:"is not destroyed" is a side effect of being Ponderous. This does not mean the Monolith must be destroyed in order to invoke its special rule. A Monolith, similar to a Drop Pod, has special deep striking rules. This biggest difference is the Monolith doesn't suffer a mishap if it would land on other models: simply move the models out of the way of the Monolith.

That is not at all what Raw says. The monolith's rules say that it is not destroyed; they do not mention Mishaps at all.
DS Mishaps didn't exist when the necron codex came out; DSing onto enemy units or impassable terrain caused the deepstriker to be destroyed.

The Raw way to play this, imho, is as stated earlier to move other units out of the way only when a destroyed result comes up for the Mishap.

@Yakface: Yes, I am seeing movement as you described. Is that not the RAW way of visualizing movement?

According to the Monolith's rules, the enemy models only have to move out of the way if the Monolith would be destroyed, which is determined only after rolling on the mishap table, which is only done after determining that scatter would land the Monolith on top of or within 1" of the enemy unit in the first place.

So, the rules in order of occurance:

1. Roll for scatter (BGB)
2. If scatter is within 1" of enemy models roll on mishap(BGB)
3. If mishap result is 'destroyed' place monolith anyway, and move enemy unit (Necron Codex)
4. If mishap result is 'misplaced' or 'delayed' follow the BGB, as the Necron Codex doesn't tell you to do anything differently in this circumstance.

Lordhat wrote:According to the Monolith's rules, the enemy models only have to move out of the way if the Monolith would be destroyed, which is determined only after rolling on the mishap table, which is only done after determining that scatter would land the Monolith on top of or within 1" of the enemy unit in the first place.

I may be wrong... But don't the rules only say that "it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith."?

This does seem to mean that, even if it rolls a destroyed on the mishap table, it is not destroyed. But it doesn't say anything about any other potential role, just that you "move any models that are in the way" which seems to mean that:

No matter what, if it lands on a unit, it will not be destroyed. Period.

But that will almost never matter, because one (still unclear as to who) has to move the offending units so that they are over 1" away to begin with.

OK Popo: The monolith Deepstrikes, Scatters poorly, and lands on a unit. This is a Depstrike Mishap. You then have to roll on the Mishap table to find out the fate of the monolith. On a roll of 1 or 2 the monolith is supposed to be destroyed, it's special rules then Kick in and the models the Monolith would have been destroyed by are displaced.

Any other result on the Mishap table is valid and must be followed; Landing far away from where it was intended is not destruction is it? Nor is not coming in until the next turn(Although this could result in the destruction of the monolith if it keeps getting delayed and the game ends before it actually makes it onto the table.)

Not to rehash the giant debate on this issue, but not everyone is in agreement over the "roll on the mishap table" to determine the monoltihs fate. It will vary from tourney to tourney. I dont think its written anywhere the correct order fo operations in that odd case. In my area everyone plays it as place monolith, move models away, anything within 1"....nope......turn continues. Right or wrong to your opinion, thats how some folks play it.

Like I had said a few posts earlier; it is OCS(Old Codex Syndrome). Under the old rules(The rules this codex were writ) if you scattered onto enemy models your unit was lost all together, there was no Mishap table.

This led the Rule to be written as not destroyed.

But how the rule is written is easily applicable to the Mishap table; Scatter onto a unit, Roll on the mishap table(because this is part of the Deep Strike rules, and the monolith does not tell you to alter it in any way), If you receive a 1 or a 2 on the mishap table(wherein you would be destroyed) then the Monolith's rule takes over moving the unit out of the way. Any other roll would stand(because none of the other outcomes is immediate destruction of the Monolith).

It is pretty spelled out by following the current rules; if there was no chance for destruction via deepstrike in this edition the rule would do nothing(Like several Tau rules).

Norbu - except that isnt what the rules actually say. The rules are 100% clear on this, with no room for debate about them.

Some people just play how they are used to playing in 3rd / 4th - which is to be discouraged, otherwise I'll "forget" and start assaulting with my bezerkers from a rhino after moving 12" - because thats how it used to work.

The rules change, deal with it.

I never played 3rd or 4th. I do not agree rules are 100% clear on this. All mishap says is if a unit CAN NOT be deployed because it lands in impassible....offtable......lands on another unit, roll mishap table. Only It never lands on another unit...the unit gets out of the way. Now Im not trying to convert you to playing this way. If you want to play it the way you interpret the rules be my guest. Im just saying not everyone plays it that way.

Deal with it!

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:I never played 3rd or 4th. I do not agree rules are 100% clear on this. All mishap says is if a unit CAN NOT be deployed because it lands in impassible....offtable......lands on another unit, roll mishap table. Only It never lands on another unit...the unit gets out of the way. Now Im not trying to convert you to playing this way. If you want to play it the way you interpret the rules be my guest. Im just saying not everyone plays it that way.

Deal with it!

BGB pg 95 wrote:
In the Movement phase, when they arrive these units may not move any further other than to disembark from a deepstriking transport vehicle....... In that turn's Shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal and obviously count as having moved in that turn's Movement phase.

This quote indicates that deepstriking is considered movement.

BGB pg. 11 wrote:....To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

So, since the Monolith's special rule modifies being destroyed (which is not the only result of 'moving' into the '1" radius' of a model anymore, but rather a result of moving into the 1" radius) and not the actual rule prohibiting you to move within an inch of enemy models you would still need to consult the mishap table. I still believe the actual sequence of rules requires the roll.

So back to the order of the events:

1. Roll for scatter (BGB)
2. If scatter is within 1" of enemy models roll on mishap(BGB) [No codex rules allowing the Monolith to move within an inch of enemy models, and the fact that the Monolith is not assaulting, means it can't be placed there... yet.]
3. If mishap result is 'destroyed' place monolith anyway, and move enemy unit (Necron Codex). [And here it is important to note that the Monolith still hasn't been given permission to move within an inch of the enemy model(s)]
4. If mishap result is 'misplaced' or 'delayed' follow the BGB, as the Necron Codex doesn't tell you to do anything differently in this circumstance.

I think the key fact here is that the Monolith does trigger the 'can't be placed' portion of the DS rules because it's special rule doesn't activate until the Monolith would be destroyed by being within 1" (or on top of) enemy units. It has no defense against the other two results, and no rules which let it move to within 1" of an enemy.

There is only one instance in which the Monolith has a 'legal right' to be placed. An instance which only occurs if you roll on the Mishap table. No other set of parameters allows it to remain in that spot. The rule doesn't say "In any circumstance in which a deepstriking Monolith would be placed within 1" of an enemy model, move the the enemy model the shortest distance to be one inch away." It says that if the Monolith would be destroyed in the above situation, then move the enemy models.

But that is not what the monolith rules say.

The monolith rules say that if the monolith lands on a unit, it is not destroyed, instead the unit gets out of the way.

The only way the monolith would get destroyed in this edition is if you roll on the mishap table and come up with a 1 or a 2.

Now this is not 100% RAI; but is 100% RAW.

As intended you would be correct, because the only thing that happened when you scattered onto a unit when the rules were written was that your unit was destroyed. Unfortunately that rule was changed, and we have no update for how the Monoliths special Deep strike rule functions with the mishap table, so we must apply the rules as written.

Norbu - except you place the model, roll on the mishap and THEN determine if it would be "destroyed"

Which is only on a 1 or 2, now.

THe rules have changed since the monoliths rules were written, and this IS how the rules work now. You may disagree, but that is not from a "rules" position.

Sorry Kel. Next time you get a chance, sit down with the appropriate rules and follow my post step by step. You'll realize that I am quoting RAW. The Monolith's ability can't function without the mishap chart, because that's the only way to get a destroyed result from DS anymore.

Lord hat: Read my posts again.

That is all.

Oops, my bad. Lost the thread there, as it were. We are in agreement.

It's alright.. I do apologize though I should have began that with "please".

The Monolith's special rule states what to do if it lands on enemy models: move the enemy models out of the way. No mishap, simple move the models out of the way. The not being destroyed isn't relevant. The BGB (or the FAQ, I don't remember right of the top of my head) states if there are older Codex rules that no longer make sense using an updated BGB then ignore the rule. In this instance, the "is not destroyed" is a relic of an out dated rule and is no longer relevant.

What does the Necron codex model say to do if the Monolith lands on enemy models? Move the models out of the way. Period. No mishap ever occurs.

No, it states what to do instead of being destroyed.............. If it's not destroyed, there is no 'instead'.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith's special rule states what to do if it lands on enemy models: move the enemy models out of the way. No mishap, simple move the models out of the way. The not being destroyed isn't relevant. The BGB (or the FAQ, I don't remember right of the top of my head) states if there are older Codex rules that no longer make sense using an updated BGB then ignore the rule. In this instance, the "is not destroyed" is a relic of an out dated rule and is no longer relevant.

What does the Necron codex model say to do if the Monolith lands on enemy models? Move the models out of the way. Period. No mishap ever occurs.

the problem with this logic is that being destroyed by deepstrike still exists. The rule is just different. You do not ignore the old codex rule if the rule is just different.

The rules states "...is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrived. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." (Codex: Necron, page 21) So, the Monolith is not destroyed if it lands within 1" of the enemy since the models are moved out of the way of the Monolith.

One of the criteria for using the Mishap table on page 95 of the BGB is landing within 1" of the enemy. The Necron Codex trumps this by specifically addressing this exact situation: move the enemy models out of the way. The BGB FAQ (page 6) deals with the issue of "the Monolith is not destroyed" since it's not a relevant anymore (it is a relic of older rules that had different rules when landing on enemy models).

It says if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply
does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the
next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects
through an errata.

I would say that it is not clear as being destroyed on a Deepstrike still occurs just in a different fashion. Also if you are arguing that the FAQ should be followed in this case, then then you would have to follow it through all the way. You could not pick and choose parts of the rule to ignore. If the rule clearly has no effect it does nothing, so it would then mishap.

The FAQ doesn't say if it does nothing amend the rule to work.

TGA - except you are applying the "instead" before the clause.

You dont find out that you "instead" move the models out of the way UNTIL you have determined if the Monolith is destroyed.

RAW: The monolith ONLY moves ENEMY models out of the way if it rolls a 1, 2 on the mishap table. No other occurence allows you (permissive ruleset, remember) to use the instead.

The rules states "...is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrived. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." (Codex: Necron, page 21)
Is not destroyed is irrelevant. It could say "is not turned into a purple monkey", or "should not be thrown at your opponent's head" if there are enemy within 1" when it arrived.
It is a basic if/then statement. The "if" is "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrived" "then" you "move any models...".
Just because it wouldn't have been destroyed, turned into a monkey or thrown at your rules-lawyering opponent in the first place is not a precondition of the qualifying "if" condition.

If a normal deep striking model would land on or within 1" of an enemy model it will be:

A: Delayed until a later round
B: Deployed anywhere on the board by the opposing player
C: Destroyed through a mishap

If the Monolith rules state that it is not destroyed by enemy models it lands on or within 1" of then this only negates option option "C" as it says nothing about being delayed or placed elsewhere. The only way to read more into this is to pull out an older addition rule book and look at how deep strike used to be played...and that's not how the rules work.

As above.

Not gonna bother arguing any longer with posters who can ignore the word "destroyed" and pretend it doesnt matter.

Incredible ability to ignore entire functional phrases. Incredible.

I don't play necrons so I'm not twisting the phrase to gain an advantage.

The question is "what happens when a monolith scatters to within 1" of an enemy model."
Answers:
A. It is not destroyed. Fine we can all agree on that. So what happens instead?
B. If the codex states a rule different than the rulebook, codex>rulebook.
C. The codex states :"Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary....".

It does not state "If the Monolith would be destroyed normally, move any models..." It is a rule stating what to do when the Monolith ends up within 1" of an enemy model. Not what to do when the Monolith would be destroyed. Changes in the main rulebook to deepstrike deployment are irrelevent because the codex tells you how to resolve a situation where the monolith is within 1" of enemy forces.

Where in the Codex does it talk about mishaps in general or options other than "Destroyed" specifically? The Codex talks only about being destroyed and what happens instead.

Here is the process as simply as I can state it. I place my deep striking Monolith on the board and say "I'm DS'ing here." I roll scatter and the monolith scatters onto an enemy unit. Now I roll on the mishap table because the monolith isn't being destroyed yet. I roll a 6 and my opponent cheers loudly..."But wait" i say "the rules for the Monolith say I'm not destroyed but I move your models instead." Now instead lets say I rolled a 2. My Monolith would be delayed (I think) and everyone just goes on with the turn. The Monolith rule doesn't kick in as I was never going to be destroyed.

The rule in the Necron Codex very specifically talks about "destroyed" and not simply "mishap", and whether the old rules made this work differently or not it still works in the new rules without any help. To say that the rule extends to all mishaps requires you to reference old rules and debate how they have changed, which again is not how the game is played.

Sorry, grotblaster, but that isn't how the rules are currently interacting.

I agree that your argument is exactly how GW intended things to work when Codex: Necrons: The Stealth Reprint was made. And, if/when they update the Necron codex, that is how I assume they will update the rule (if they don't get rid of it entirely). But, that's not how things are currently working.

It's like Eldrich Storm for Eldar. When the codex came out, the blast produced didn't need to roll to hit and didn't scatter. Now, with 5th ed, it does scatter.

The entire phrase about moving models out of the way is explaining what to do to allow you to place the Monolith onto the board in a location it couldn't typically go. The "if, then" statement is the simple If it would be destroyed from deep striking within 1" of enemy models, then don't destroy it. The rest of the text is explaining how the you're suppose to place a model in the same space as another model without fairy dust.

Edit:
Additionally, if I was playing a game against Necrons, I'd have zero problem with a house rule allowing the movement of enemy models out of it's way for any mishap.

You have a rule that is written to interact with the core rules from an earlier edition.

You have 2 choices on how to resolve this rule:
A) Ignore it since the deepstrike rules no longer function the same way they did when it was written
-or-
B) Apply it as it is written since the new deepstrike rules do allow the trigger for this rule to take effect.

The "instead" is a qualifier to the rule, and directly ties into the sentence before it. In order to move models away from a deep striking monolith; that monolith must be destroyed by landing on them. The only way for the monolith to be destroyed by the models it lands on is if you roll on the mishap table.

If you are not rolling on the mishap table, would the monolith be destroyed?

"You have a rule that is written to interact with the core rules from an earlier edition. "
This is the crux of our different interpretations. I see the wording replacing, not interacting with, any core rules on dealing with moving within 1" of an enemy, so a change in the core rules doesn't impact how the situation is resolved.
Look at it this way, if the company handbook says call Tina in case of a fire. Your boss tells you that doesn't apply to us, instead at this branch we call bob in case of a fire. If company policy changes to say call Todd, does this effect your instructions at all?

grotblaster wrote:.
Look at it this way, if the company handbook says call Tina in case of a fire. Your boss tells you that doesn't apply to us, instead at this branch we call bob in case of a fire. If company policy changes to say call Todd, does this effect your instructions at all?

Your analogy fails because there has to be a fire first. We're saying that you can't have a fire at all until you roll on the mishap chart. THEN you can call Bob instead of Tina or Todd.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
According to the Monolith's rules, the enemy models only have to move out of the way if the Monolith would be destroyed, which is determined only after rolling on the mishap table, which is only done after determining that scatter would land the Monolith on top of or within 1" of the enemy unit in the first place.

Tina called she said that beings it wasn't an electrical fire but just a minor gas explosion that Todd is gonna put it where he likes ok ?

One of the reasons to check the mishap table is if a unit deepstrikes within 1" of an enemy. The Monolith has a very specific rule to deal with just a situation: move the models out of the way of the Monolith. The codex SPECIFICALLY states that's what happens if a Monolith lands within 1" of the enemy. The fact the Monolith is not destroyed becomes moot in 5th edition rules. grotblaster could not make it any plainer.


There is no check to see if the Monolith is destroyed. The rule doesn't state"If the Monolith is destroyed..."; it states the monolith isn't destroyed if it lands on enemy models, that is a HUGE difference. Y'all are adding more to the rule than this there.

Now, I will say as RAW the Monolith moves ENEMY models out of the way, however, landing on friendly models would result in consulting the mishap table. RAI, I would say the same thing applies to the friendly models as would the enemy models. (The codex doesn't SPECIFICALLY call out friendly models the way the Mishap rule does.)

there's only a 1/3 chance it could be destroyed so your logic is flawed

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:there's only a 1/3 chance it could be destroyed so your logic is flawed

How so? If the Monolith lands on an enemy model the codex says to move the model. Where's the 1/3 chance of being destroyed?

It says if it would be destroyed to move enemy models ... You're leaving rules out


Automatically Appended Next Post:
deepstrike mishap table, roll a D6 1-2 is destroyed ... 3-6 other goodies


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1/3 chance

TheGreatAvatar wrote: it states the monolith isn't destroyed if it lands on enemy models, that is a HUGE difference. Y'all are adding more to the rule than this there.

And again, there's no destroyed result to call exception to if you never roll on the mishap chart. Show us in print the part of the Monolith's rules that let you ignore the chart.

You won't find a rule saying "The Monolith isn't Delayed if there are Enemy units within 1" When it arrives. Instead...", nor will you find a rule stating "The Monolith isn't Misplaced if there are Enemy units within 1" When it arrives. Instead...". There is one and only one instance when you are permitted by the rules to move enemy models out of the Monolith's way, and, in this scenario, one and only one way to arrive at this instance.

Codex: Necrons 2nd printing, pg. 21 wrote: Deep Strike: A Necron attack is often started by Monoliths teleporting to the surface to act as bridges for the invading forces. A Monolith may therefor be deployed by Deep Strike if the special rules for the mission being played include it. Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1' when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

Emphasis mine.

Note that the rule does not mention doing anything instead of being misplaced, or instead of being delayed. The Codex only mentions destroyed, so that is the only rule you get to modify. Much in the same way that Extra Armor only lets you modify Shaken results on the vehicle damage chart, the Monolith only lets you modify the destroyed result on the DS mishap chart. If ignoring one possible outcome on a chart let you avoid rolling on the entire thing, then no vehicle with EA could ever be destroyed.

Lordhat wrote:

Codex: Necrons 2nd printing, pg. 21 wrote: Deep Strike: A Necron attack is often started by Monoliths teleporting to the surface to act as bridges for the invading forces. A Monolith may therefor be deployed by Deep Strike if the special rules for the mission being played include it. Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1' when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

If I may steal this quote for a second..

thank you!

it seems to me that it's saying two things

1) No matter what The Monolith is not destroyed if there are enemy units within 1" of 'lith when it arrives
and
2)Move any models that are in the way the minimum distance away to make space for the monolith

Lord PoPo wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

Codex: Necrons 2nd printing, pg. 21 wrote: Deep Strike: A Necron attack is often started by Monoliths teleporting to the surface to act as bridges for the invading forces. A Monolith may therefor be deployed by Deep Strike if the special rules for the mission being played include it. Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1' when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

If I may steal this quote for a second..

thank you!

it seems to me that it's saying two things

1) No matter what The Monolith is not destroyed if there are enemy units within 1" of 'lith when it arrives
and
2)Move any models that are in the way the minimum distance away to make space for the monolith

1) Deepstrike mishap chart, there are other things than destroyed via the rules
2) Yes if that is rolled on the mishap chart

The sign in the hallway says "In case of fire, do not panic. Instead, pull fire alarm and exit building." Does this mean:
A. If there is a fire and I am on the verge of panicking, I should pull the fire alarm and exit the building. If there is a fire and I am calm, I should go back to my desk and wait until I am on the verge of panicking before I do anything.
B. Do not panic. In addition, pull the fire alarm and exit the building.

This is the same structure as the Monolith rule. In case of fire=if within 1"; Do not panic=Do not Destroy; pull fire alarm=move models. The situation addressed is the landing within 1" of models. The prohibition in the first sentence is not a precondition for instructions that follow.

Analogies tend to fail in these situations.

If we panic at work should we pull the fire alarm? Not if we are in a state of panic because the IRS has come to do an audit. We only pull the fire alarm if there is a fire. In other words, we only move the models if the monolith would be destroyed because that is the only time that the rules give us permission.

Sliggoth

TheGreatAvatar wrote: One of the reasons to check the mishap table is if a unit deepstrikes within 1" of an enemy. The Monolith has a very specific rule to deal with just a situation: move the models out of the way of the Monolith. The codex SPECIFICALLY states that's what happens if a Monolith lands within 1" of the enemy. The fact the Monolith is not destroyed becomes moot in 5th edition rules. grotblaster could not make it any plainer.


There is no check to see if the Monolith is destroyed. The rule doesn't state"If the Monolith is destroyed..."; it states the monolith isn't destroyed if it lands on enemy models, that is a HUGE difference. Y'all are adding more to the rule than this there.

Now, I will say as RAW the Monolith moves ENEMY models out of the way, however, landing on friendly models would result in consulting the mishap table. RAI, I would say the same thing applies to the friendly models as would the enemy models. (The codex doesn't SPECIFICALLY call out friendly models the way the Mishap rule does.)

The Necron codex doesn't SPECIFICALLY address impassable terrain or scattering off the table either.

So you are saying if you scatter on any models (enemy or friendly) then you are going to just move them out of the way and disregard the mishap table?

Fine, then if your Monolith scatters onto impassable terrain or off the table, it is destroyed. This also follows "not using the mishap table".

If you are going to disregard 5th edition rules for some mishaps, you should disregard them for all mishaps.

But, if you want to follow the mishap table for scattering onto impassable terrain or off the table, then you must follow the mishap table for scattering onto friendly or enemy units as well.

The difference is, if my terminatiors scatter on top of enemy models and I roll a '1' or '2' on the mishap table, my unit is destroyed.

If the same occurs for your Monolith, the enemy models are moved out of the way. How much more of an advantage do you want?

"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith. "

The situation addressed is "if there are enemy within 1" it is not "if it is destroyed". You do not pull the fire alarm if you panic, because the instructions are what to do "in case of fire" not "in case of panic".

Time Wizard, you are right that it says nothing about impassable terrain or scattering off the table. In those cases you would consult the mishap table because the codex only addresses what to do "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives" so you consult the rulebook to see what happens in other cases.

grotblaster wrote:"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith. "

... well it can only possibly be destroyed if you roll on the mishap table. I don't see anything about if the monolith would be placed elsewhere by an opponent, or put back into reserve ...

And, as above, the only thing you are told to do is to move models out of the way IF it would be destroyed.

How do you know it would be destroyed? You check the mishap table.

Or you could pretend that 5trh edition rules dont apply to you.

A monolith that deepstrikes on top of an enemy unit does not automatically push it 1" away anymore, that is what happened in 3rd ed etc.

Now the mono will ds, land on an enemy unit and roll for a deepstrike mishap as normal, now if the monolith then rolls a destroyed result, it will push the models out of the way. It will suffer delayed and misplaced results as normal.

TL;DR a monolith only pushes models back if it would be destroyed by landing on them, however you are only destroyed by landing on models you ds onto if you roll a destroyed result on the mishap table.

jdjamesdean@mail.com: You are correct that you see nothing saying what to do if the monolith would be placed elsewhere, put into reserve, smashed with a hammer or painted blue. What you see is instruction on what to do "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". Following these instructions takes care of the rest.

Once again, if I tell you "if you see a bird in the back yard, don't shoot it. Instead, refill the birdfeeder". If you don't have a gun or the intention to shoot it in the first place, should you not refill the birdfeeder?

grotblaster wrote: Time Wizard, you are right that it says nothing about impassable terrain or scattering off the table. In those cases you would consult the mishap table because the codex only addresses what to do "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives" so you consult the rulebook to see what happens in other cases.

You are putting the cart before the horse here. Let me explain.

In 4th edition, you could not deep strike unless the mission or your special rules allowed it. The Monolith special rule said it was only allowed to deep strike if the special rules for the mission allowed it. So you first have to follow the main rulebook and then the special rule in the codex.

Now if it was allowed and you did deep strike your Monolith, you did so according to the deep strike rules in the main rulebook. Under those rules, if you scattered onto impassable terrain or off the boiard or within 1" of an enemy unit, you were destroyed. The Monolith special rule said if there were enemy units within 1", it was not destroyed, you moved the enemy models out of the way. So again, you first followed the rules in the main rulebook and then the special rule in the codex.

Now the main rules have been updated. First you are now allowed to deep strike in all standard missions. And now, if you scatter off the table or onto impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy unit, you are not immediately destroyed, you have instead suffered a mishap. You then roll according to the rules for the mishap table.

If you roll a certain number on the mishap table, and have scattered within 1" of an enemy unit, you are destroyed. But you can now follow the special rules in the Necron codex that states if the Monolith scatters within 1" of an enemy unit, it is not destroyed, the enemy unit is moved instead.

That is the order you must use. First you follow the main rules, then you apply any codex specific rules. That is putting the horse before the cart.

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote: Time Wizard, you are right that it says nothing about impassable terrain or scattering off the table. In those cases you would consult the mishap table because the codex only addresses what to do "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives" so you consult the rulebook to see what happens in other cases.

You are putting the cart before the horse here. Let me explain.

In 4th edition, you could not deep strike unless the mission or your special rules allowed it. The Monolith special rule said it was only allowed to deep strike if the special rules for the mission allowed it. So you first have to follow the main rulebook and then the special rule in the codex.
Now if it was allowed and you did deep strike your Monolith, you did so according to the deep strike rules in the main rulebook. Under those rules, if you scattered onto impassable terrain or off the boiard or within 1" of an enemy unit, you were destroyed. The Monolith special rule said if there were enemy units within 1", it was not destroyed, you moved the enemy models out of the way. So again, you first followed the rules in the main rulebook and then the special rule in the codex.
Now the main rules have been updated. First you are now allowed to deep strike in all standard missions. And now, if you scatter off the table or onto impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy unit, you are not immediately destroyed, you have instead suffered a mishap. You then roll according to the rules for the mishap table.

If you roll a certain number on the mishap table, and have scattered within 1" of an enemy unit, you are destroyed. But you can now follow the special rules in the Necron codex that states if the Monolith scatters within 1" of an enemy unit, it is not destroyed, the enemy unit is moved instead.

That is the order you must use. First you follow the main rules, then you apply any codex specific rules. That is putting the horse before the cart.

I agree with most of what you say here. Following the Monolith rules in the codex:
1st I check to see if deepstriking is allowed in the mission. Ok rulebook now says it is always allowed.
2nd I follow these rules for deepstriking by placing where I want to land and rolling the scatter die and 2d6. (unless there is a special rule like descent of angels, icon, etc. that changes this)
3rd I move the monolith along the path dictated by the scatter die a number of inches equal to the total of the 2d6 and place the model. (unless there is a special rule changing this)
4th I check to see if the model is off the table, onto impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model. (unless there is a special rule changing this like drop pods, or the monolith)
5th Since there is no special rule for what to do if the Monolith lands off the table or in impassable terrain I roll on the mishap chart if that happens. If the Monolith lands within 1" of an enemy model there is a special rule, so I follow that instead. Please note that it does not say if the Monolith is within "1" of an enemy model and would be destroyed" only "if it is within 1" of an enemy model it is not destroyed". This is why we never reach the mishap table.

But you do reach the mishap table, as the ponderous rule only comes into effect when you would be destroyed by landing on the enemy units.

That can only happen by rolling destroyed on the mishap table.

The monos rule is not a blanket alowance to skip the mishap steps, if you landed within 1" an enemy model you have mishapped.

grotblaster wrote:5th Since there is no special rule for what to do if the Monolith lands off the table or in impassable terrain I roll on the mishap chart if that happens. If the Monolith lands within 1" of an enemy model there is a special rule, so I follow that instead. Please note that it does not say if the Monolith is within "1" of an enemy model and would be destroyed" only "if it is within 1" of an enemy model it is not destroyed". This is why we never reach the mishap table.

Everything was good up until this point.
Again, you don't invoke the codex special rule before the main rule.

BRB page 95 top right spells out deep strike mishaps. These rules apply to every unit in every codex that deep strikes.
They specify what happens to each and every unit that mishaps.
Every unit in every codex that scatters within 1" of an enemy unit and rolls a '1' or '2' on the mishap table is destroyed.
Except one particluar unit (that I know of) and that unit is the Necron Monolith which has a special rule that says it is not destroyed if it arrives within 1" of an enemy. You instead move the enemy units the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith.
With the exception of the other two types of results on the mishap table, that is the only condition that would prevent destruction of the Monolith, unlike any other deep striking unit.

Once again, you do not deep strike the monolith, follow a special rule in the codex, and if that doesn't fit follow the rules in the main rulebook.

You follow the rules in the main rulebook (in this case rules for deep strike mishaps) and after the effect has been applied (ie. being destroyed) you can then use a special rule (ie. monolith deep strike) that a unit has in it's codex.

If it helps at all, I have never met anyone who suggested actually playing the monolith rules as they are written.

They are, however, written so that they apply in (less than) 1/3 of the mishaps in 5e.

People often read them otherwise, but that is something else entirely.

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote:5th Since there is no special rule for what to do if the Monolith lands off the table or in impassable terrain I roll on the mishap chart if that happens. If the Monolith lands within 1" of an enemy model there is a special rule, so I follow that instead. Please note that it does not say if the Monolith is within "1" of an enemy model and would be destroyed" only "if it is within 1" of an enemy model it is not destroyed". This is why we never reach the mishap table.

Everything was good up until this point.
Again, you don't invoke the codex special rule before the main rule.

BRB page 95 top right spells out deep strike mishaps. These rules apply to every unit in every codex that deep strikes.
They specify what happens to each and every unit that mishaps.
Every unit in every codex that scatters within 1" of an enemy unit and rolls a '1' or '2' on the mishap table is destroyed.
Except one particluar unit (that I know of) and that unit is the Necron Monolith which has a special rule that says it is not destroyed if it arrives within 1" of an enemy. You instead move the enemy units the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith.
With the exception of the other two types of results on the mishap table, that is the only condition that would prevent destruction of the Monolith, unlike any other deep striking unit.

Once again, you do not deep strike the monolith, follow a special rule in the codex, and if that doesn't fit follow the rules in the main rulebook.

You follow the rules in the main rulebook (in this case rules for deep strike mishaps) and after the effect has been applied (ie. being destroyed) you can then use a special rule (ie. monolith deep strike) that a unit has in it's codex.

How do you deal with Drop pods? Descent of Angels? Lictors? Marbo? There are lots of units that deepstrike that replace the normal steps taken in deep strike. If a drop pod scatters onto impassable terrain or an enemy model, you don't roll on the mishap table. You "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required..." This interrupts the deep strike steps as soon as the qualifying event takes place.
Same with the Monolith's rule about moving other models.
The deep strike mishap rules state "If any models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong. The controlling player must roll on the deep strike mishap table and apply the results." If a drop pod lands on impassable terrain or an enemy model you reduce the the scatter distance so it can be placed and is therefore not affected by the mishap table. In the case of the Monolith, you move the other models instead, but the outcome (it is able to be placed and therefore not affected by the mishap table) is the same.

In both cases btw, the special rules say nothing about friendly models so you would roll on the mishap table if you land on friendly models.

Because they specifically state the alternative.

Same as the monolith, HOWEVER the monolith, because its from 3rd ed, only affects *1* of the *3* mishap results.

grotblaster wrote:How do you deal with . . . Lictors? Marbo? There are lots of units that deepstrike that replace the normal steps taken in deep strike.

Neither of those two Deepstrike, actually.

grotblaster wrote:If a drop pod lands on impassable terrain or an enemy model you reduce the the scatter distance so it can be placed and is therefore not affected by the mishap table. In the case of the Monolith, you move the other models instead, but the outcome (it is able to be placed and therefore not affected by the mishap table) is the same.

This is where you mis-use the rules.

Drop pods (et al) reduce scatter to avoid using the mishap table.

Monoliths ignore being destroyed as a result of Deepstriking--which requires the mishap table to occur.

grotblaster wrote:How do you deal with Drop pods? Descent of Angels? Lictors? Marbo? There are lots of units that deepstrike that replace the normal steps taken in deep strike.

No unit replaces the normal steps in deep strike. To review;

First: Place one model from the unit on the table
Next: Roll the Scatter Die. If a hit the unit stays there, if an arrow roll 2D6
Next: Move the model that number of inches (total of the 2D6) in the direction of the arrow.
Next: Place any other models in the arriving unit in base contact with the first model.
Conditional: If any models would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, roll on the mishap table.

Now granted, some units have special rules that would make certain steps unnecessary.
Units that deep strike within a certain distance of a Lictor don't scatter, ergo no scatter die roll.
Terminators deep striking within a certain distance of a teleport homer don't scatter, ergo no scatter die roll.
Drop pods, after rolling for scatter, will reduce the scatter distance to avoid certain obstacles (impassable terrain and other models) but they still roll the scatter die.

And if you fulfil any of the conditions for deep strike mishap, you follow that rule too.
Suppose you are foolish enough to dep strike a nid unit next to a Lictor and within 1" of an enemy unit. No scatter die roll. But you are still within 1" of an enemy unit so you trigger a deep strike mishap.

Bottom line is you still follow the main rules for deep striking and for deep strike mishaps. If a unit has a codex specific rule (like Lictor no scatter, drop pod inertial guidance, etc) then that special rule will take precedence over the specific part of the deep strike rule.
But you still follow the rule step by step.

LOL @ Marbo Deepstriking

seriously have you read what a drop pod does?

"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith. "
"It is not destroyed" is a prohibition against a specific result the cause of which is "enemy within 1" when it arrives". The "enemy within 1" when it arrives" is the specific deep strike rule which it is addressing.
This rule has not changed and the steps taken to address the situation haven't changed either.
You don't check to see if models are within 1" after shooting it with a lascannon and getting a destroyed result. This is not a rule about what to do when the Monolith is destroyed, this is a rule about what to do when the Monolith arrives from deepstrike within 1" of enemy models.

I understand that you are reading the word "instead" to mean only if the outcome would be destroyed otherwise.

My point is that in normal similar English phrasing, "instead" followed by instructions does not mean "only in an instance of exact replacement of the earlier prohibition". Thus my examples of "In case of fire, do not panic. Instead, pull fire alarm." or "Don't shoot a bird if it comes into the backyard. Instead, refill the birdfeeder." These can be read as "in case of fire, pull the fire alarm" or "if a bird comes into the backyard, refill the birdfeeder". The additional prohibition is not seen as a necessary qualifier to following the subsequent instructions. I read the rule above in the same manner I would any similar English phrase.

OT: Would you say DoA doesn't replace normal steps? roll 1d6 vs. 2d6

P.S. I appreciate that this is civil discourse and no one is calling me names yet

GW doesn't use proper english, havn't you read a codex?
The rules for deepstrike changed and now alas the monolith is forced to follow them. Unfortunately Destroyed is Destroyed and well placed back in reserve unfortunately isn't.

grotblaster wrote: "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith. "
"It is not destroyed" is a prohibition against a specific result the cause of which is "enemy within 1" when it arrives". The "enemy within 1" when it arrives" is the specific deep strike rule which it is addressing.
This rule has not changed and the steps taken to address the situation haven't changed either.
You don't check to see if models are within 1" after shooting it with a lascannon and getting a destroyed result. This is not a rule about what to do when the Monolith is destroyed, this is a rule about what to do when the Monolith arrives from deepstrike within 1" of enemy models.

Exactly! What do we do when it arrives 1" from an enemy model?
Well consider this. The Necron Codex gives the Monolith permission to deploy by deep strike. But the Necron Codex does not give any mechanics for this arrival.
The mechanics for deep strike deployment are found only in one place, the main rulebook.
There have been substantial changes in the deep strike rules from one edition to another.
As has been said, in past editions if you scattered or landed within 1" of an enemy unit you were destroyed, no ifs ands or buts. Not so the Monolith!
It has a special rule that says to move the enemy unit.
You followed all the rules for deep striking and were granted an exception to being destroyed (a specific result) by landing within 1" of an enemy (a specific condition).

Now in the new rules, the same condition (landing within 1" of an enemy model among others) does not trigger being destroyed, instead it triggers a "mishap". This gives all units a chance of avoiding destruction.
Now if a unit does land within 1" of an enemy, it rolls on the mishap table.And if it rolls a '1' or '2', the unit is destroyed. Not so the Monolith!
It has a special rule that says to move the enemy unit.
You followed all the rules for deep striking and were granted an exception to being destroyed (a specific result) by landing within 1" of an enemy (a specific condition).

grotblaster wrote:
I understand that you are reading the word "instead" to mean only if the outcome would be destroyed otherwise.

There is no other interpretation. "Instead" can only refer to a specific exemption (move the enemy models) to an otherwise specific result (being destroyed) to a specific condition (landing within 1" of an enemy model).

grotblaster wrote:
P.S. I appreciate that this is civil discourse and no one is calling me names yet

I never indulge in name calling. It has no place in an intelligent discussion.

As above.

The "instead" IS a condition based on meeting the prior event - the prior event being "monolith would be destroyed"

The monolith would NOT be destroyed if it rolls a 3 - 6 on the mishap chart. So the "move models out of the way" is not triggered.

Proper English or not the rules are written in English (at least the ones I have) and all require an interpretation of how to apply written word to tabletop gameplay. Your interpretation is that "do not do x" followed by "instead do y" means "only if x occurs should you do y". I read it to mean "do not do x, in addition do y."
I believe similar phrasing supports the common understanding of the latter.

Also, my apologies for the Lictor and Marbo comments. Last edition lictors deep struck but did not deviate out of terrain. Was thinking Marbo was worded similar but without codices handy I was wrong. The one rule I was correct on was drop pods, which interestingly enough is the one jd chose to mock me for

The diference is they are similar because they deepstrike, similarities will end there, the pod, Spod, DoA all have their own special rules for deepstriking. The monoliths rule is fairly specific, as is the word destroyed.

If it's not destroyed my models stay and the monolith gos packing. If it didn't say destroyed you'd be right.

Otherwise you're not meeting the requirements set upon to deepstrike.

missed the drop pod line my bad

grotblaster wrote: I read it to mean "do not do x, in addition do y."

Here is your problem. When the rule clearly says "instead" (by using the specific word, no less), you read "in addition". There is no phrasing anywhere in the rule that even indicates the term in addition. I don't know how you can justify this to yourself. As a matter of fact, I've just decided that you are in fact, trolling. There's no other way I can comprehend that someone with a working knowledge of the English language can read "instead" as "in addition". Good day.

grotblaster wrote:P.S. I appreciate that this is civil discourse and no one is calling me names yet

Lordhat wrote: As a matter of fact, I've just decided that you are in fact, trolling.

Aww, man.

Lordhat wrote:someone with a working knowledge of the English language

And British even, easily confused for americans.

Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.
For instance if I say "Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. Instead, be polite and clear." Being polite and clear indeed replaces being insulting. But the intent to be insulting is not necessary to following directions to be polite and clear.
This follows in both the King's English and for those of us who speak some broken derivative.

grotblaster wrote:Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.
For instance if I say "Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. Instead, be polite and clear." Being polite and clear indeed replaces being insulting. But the intent to be insulting is not necessary to following directions to be polite and clear.
This follows in both the King's English and for those of us who speak some broken derivative.

So, you're saying the instructions from your sentence are:

1) Do not be insulting.
2) If you want to get your point across, be polite and clear.

That means the Monolith's rules would say:

1) It is not destroyed.
2) If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, move those models out of the way.

But, this breakdown has no other qualifiers. It wouldn't be destroyed by landing outside the game board, or by landing on your own models. Or, by getting shot by a lascannon the following turn.

Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that.

An edit for your edit

I would clarify that the instructions are:
1)Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. (the statement doesn't actually say never be insulting)
2)If you want to get you point across, be polite and clear
and following:
1)it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives
2)If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, move those models out of the way

I think Grak was trying to say your breakdown of the monoliths rules dont actually work, as it makes it immune to all damage if it deepstrikes.

If you end up with a ludicrous result rethink your parsing...

nosferatu1001 wrote:I think Grak was trying to say your breakdown of the monoliths rules dont actually work, as it makes it immune to all damage if it deepstrikes.

If you end up with a ludicrous result rethink your parsing...

That is what I was trying to say. Took me a few edits to get it across though...

grotblaster wrote:Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.

And if X were the only possible outcome in this situation (as it used to be) then you'd be 100% correct. But now there's D and M as well. The only way to trigger X is to roll on the mishap chart.

grotblaster wrote:1)it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives
2)If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, move those models out of the way

If it said that, you could very well be correct.

Instead replace "arrives" with "would be destroyed (because of Deepstrike resolution)" and see how it works--and compares to the text.

Lordhat wrote:

grotblaster wrote:Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.

And if X were the only possible outcome in this situation (as it used to be) then you'd be 100% correct. But now there's D and M as well. The only way to trigger X is to roll on the mishap chart.

In my prior statement "Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. Instead, be polite and clear." You may not be intending to be insulting. There may be a 1/3 chance that you will be insulting, a 1/3 chance that you'll be coy and a 1/3 chance that you'll be flirtatous. Do the instructions to be clear and polite apply only when you are intending to be insulting?

Kirsanth: The rule states "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives", not "if it would be destroyed...." so I don't think replacing the text is appropriate.

The analogies are getting further and further away from our source material I think. Also we seem to be running in circles. Based on the article I think most people agree that you should roll on mishap first, but it is GENERALLY not played that way. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree? Unless someone has anything new besides further dissecting the English language.

I do not think replacing ANY of the text is necessary.

I meant that your assertion of what the rules (should?) say should be changed as I suggested to closer match the rules.

Either way the rules themselves say neither, it is not 2 seperate actions.

grotblaster wrote:
Kirsanth: The rule states "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives", not "if it would be destroyed...." so I don't think replacing the text is appropriate.

Actually, the rule says "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."

What would make such a rule necessary? The answer is the last edition rulebook. Right in the deep strike rule where it said that "If you are unable to complete a circle of models without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off table, the surplus models are destroyed."

So if a Monolith entered impassable terrain or went off the table, it was destroyed. BUT, if it came to rest within 1" of an enemy unit, it was NOT destroyed, the enemy models were moved.
This special survival rule was granted by the Necron Codex.
Therefore, the monolith first had to follow the core rules for deep striking and if a certain condition was met, it would not be destroyed. In all other cases it would be destroyed.

Now the deep strike rules have changed. I've summarized and quoted them enough times that I don't have to do it again.
The monolith still has to follow the core rules for deep striking, and if a certain condition occurs, then it will use it's special rule.
Then, and ONLY then.
No amount of re-reading or re-interpreting of the rules will change to order of operation here.
If you choose to play it differently, so be it. But just understand it does not follow the rules.

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote:
Kirsanth: The rule states "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives", not "if it would be destroyed...." so I don't think replacing the text is appropriate.

Actually, the rule says "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."

What would make such a rule necessary? The answer is the last edition rulebook. Right in the deep strike rule where it said that "If you are unable to complete a circle of models without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off table, the surplus models are destroyed."
Agree Completely
So if a Monolith entered impassable terrain or went off the table, it was destroyed. BUT, if it came to rest within 1" of an enemy unit, it was NOT destroyed, the enemy models were moved.
This special survival rule was granted by the Necron Codex.
Therefore, the monolith first had to follow the core rules for deep striking and if a certain condition was met, it would not be destroyed. In all other cases it would be destroyed.
Agree Completely.
Now the deep strike rules have changed. I've summarized and quoted them enough times that I don't have to do it againThe monolith still has to follow the core rules for deep striking, and if a certain condition occurs, then it will use it's special rule.
Agree Completely. So what is that "certain condition"? "If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". Being destroyed is not part of this condition. It would be the normal remedy to the situation, but the rule is telling you not to apply this remedy. Instead you should apply a different remedy to this "condition". Instead, in the case of this "condition", the remedy is to move the models away. If the normal remedy changes, it does not change the fact that you have instructions to apply the special monolith remedy to this situation.

Then, and ONLY then.
No amount of re-reading or re-interpreting of the rules will change to order of operation here.
If you choose to play it differently, so be it. But just understand it does not follow the rules.

Edit:blue is not my color

You had it up to the last "Agree Completely"; then you lost it.

That "Certain Condition" is not an enemy being within 1". It is an enemy being within 1" and a destroyed result on the mishap table.

If the monolith wouldn't be destroyed, it's rules for what happens instead of it being destroyed cannot kick in.

How can the Monolith being destroyed be part of the condition this rule seeks to explain remedy of? Is it destroyed and then brought back? No it is never destroyed, therefore being destroyed is not part of the "condition". There was no mishap table and no destroyed result in 4th. The rule is telling us how to deal with the condition of being with 1" of an enemy when it arrives. It specifically states that we should not destroy it because that was the default remedy, not because that is part of the "condition" to be addressed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Norbu - except that isnt what the rules actually say. The rules are 100% clear on this, with no room for debate about them.

Some people just play how they are used to playing in 3rd / 4th - which is to be discouraged, otherwise I'll "forget" and start assaulting with my bezerkers from a rhino after moving 12" - because thats how it used to work.

The rules change, deal with it.

Hrm.....perfect RAW will never exist. While 5th edition rules might seem to need monoliths to take deepstrike tests, few people are in favor of RAW when they *favor* units.

For example, some RAW examples from the old DE codex:

-Blasters didn't have the lance special rule, so they reduced the armour of 12+ vehicles down to 12....even if it was a blessed hull Black Templar Land Raider that ignores lances.

-Wyches got their 4++ if they assaulted a vehicle and it exploded - because the dodge save wasn't conferred by being in close combat, it was conferred by the charge itself.

-Horrorfexes could pin any unit in the game (even fearless units) because it was forcing a leadership test, not a pinning test.

-Reaver Jetbikes were STR5 T5 because their base strength and toughness (4) was accentuated by the eldar jetbike rule.


Except....none of these were very accepted opinions, least of all by the rules lawyers here on Dakka, despite them being perfect RAW. There *is* a point where common sense needs to be injected to understand how an older codex applies to a rulebook using langauge that didn't exist at the time of the codex printing.

And here, in this case, the rules work PERFECTLY well with the 5th edition rules.

Roll on the table. If you roll a 1 or 2, the monolith is not destroyed. The other 2 results apply as normal.

Yes, this means that this reduces the monolith due to an edition change. Which is entirely irrelevant.

Being destroyed when landing on enemy models during a Deepstrike move is a relic of previous rules. This much is fact. (see the previous rules for specific references)

The current Codex: Necron states a Monolith is not destroyed if it deepstrikes within 1" of enemy models. This much is fact. (page 21 of the Codex: Necron)

The current rules state a Deepstriking unit consults the Mishap table for various mishap reasons one of them being landing within 1" models. This much is fact. (page 95, BRB)

The current Codex: Necron states the enemy models that the Monolith would land on are moved out of the way of the Monolith. This much is fact. (page 21 of the Codex: Necron)

The current rules state in the event of contradictions in rules between a codex and the rulebook, the codex rules take precedence. This much is fact. (page 98, BRB)

The BGB FAQ states codex rules that are relics and reference previous rules no longer in effect are dismissed. This much is fact. (page 6, BRB FAQ)

So....
Which rule do you consult when a Monolith deepstikes within 1" of the enemy, the Mishap rule or the Codex: Necron? Based on page 98 of the BRB, the rules from the Codex: Necron are used. Thus, using the codex rule, the Monolith that deepstrikes within 1" of the enemy is not destroyed (a moot point now) and the enemy models are moved out of the way of the Monolith.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

The BGB FAQ states codex rules that are relics and reference previous rules no longer in effect are dismissed. This much is fact. (page 6, BRB FAQ)
.

Correct, it says that special rules that CLEARLY have no function are to be ignored. Not part of the rule. if you use this arguement then the entire Deepstrike special rule will be ignored (as this is under the deepstrike special rule in necron codex). You do not get to pick part of a rule to use.

ITT: a lot of upset necron players shoving their fingers in their ears and making noise.

kill dem stunties wrote:ITT: a lot of upset necron players shoving their fingers in their ears and making noise.

And to prevent comments like this, we have forums rules. Observe them or perish.

And while it is of course not perfect, INAT addresses this issue quite clearly. Yes, yes....bunches of people hate INAT. But this *is* Dakka. Where INAT goes with the territory.

No dash :(

Mannahnin wrote:As noted, GW's FAQs are given authority by being issued by GW, and widely adhered to by players around the world; including at every GW tournament, and virtually every independant tournament. If you read the "Tenets of You Make Da Call" thread stickied at the top of the forum, you will see that they are considered official rules for the purposes of this forum.

The INAT FAQ is not "just" a set of personal opinions. It is a collection of rulings debated and collectively agreed upon by a group of experienced tournament players and organizers, who have been assembled by one of the world's preeminent tournaments. Rulings are discussed exhaustively and with a specific rationale, and voted on.

That being said, it still does not come from GW so is not considered official for the purposes of this forum. What authority it possesses comes from the good reputation and integrity of the people involved, from the size and prominence of Adepticon, and from the number of other tournaments which make use of it.

Just one of many examples of the INAT use being shot down by the Mod/Admin Team.

I for one am done with this arguement as I'm not budging but if you'd like to make up and change rules on a case by case basis w/e.

At my store where the TO and I do all the rulings this has been brought up before and guess what ... it gos to the mishap table, becuase destroyed only happens 1/3 times ... it's not my fault your archaic codex is worded poorly and still works with 5th ed ...

kill dem stunties wrote:ITT: a lot of upset necron players shoving their fingers in their ears and making noise.

Thank you for that insightful contribution to the discussion.

1. I would assert that the rules are a series of proscribed actions to deal with gameplay situations. I.e. If a model is shooting, roll a die.
2. "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." This is fluff up to the comma. " it is not destroyed" is the action to be taken in a gameplay situation " if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are no other caveats to the the gameplay situation presented.
3. "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." This is an action to replace the destroy action in the prior sentence. Since it is replacing the " do not destroy" action, it must be done in accordance with the gameplay situation presented previously. This gameplay situation is "if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are still no additional caveats.

Exactly. But it is only destroyed by models being within an inch if it rolls 1/3 of the odds on the mishap table.

Which, at the end of the day, is damn good.

TGA - you were fine until you separated out "move models 1" away" when that is a result you take INSTEAD OF being destroyed.

None of your parsing can avoid that "Instead of" is the key phrase and what you are attempting to remove.

You move models 1" out of the way INSTEAD OF being destroyed

When do you get destroyed? By rolling on the mishap table and rolling a 1 or 2. If you roll either result you are NOT destroyed by landing within 1" but delayed or misplaced. As neither of these satisfy the REQUIREMENT "destroyed" ytou CANNOT perform the "instead of" action.

Just to muddy the waters and for my own perverse joy at seeing all the angry and disgusted replies...

If it is the last turn and you roll on the mishap table and get a unit delayed result the model is usually delayed. By going by the ever so clear rules, the Monolith would be placed "instead of being destroyed" and enemy models would be moved out of the way.

Huh?

No, the monolith would go into reserves. The GAMe ending is what then destroys the monolith.

But the cause of the roll is an enemy within 1 inch, and the result is the destruction of the monolith. Therefore the monolith special rule comes into play. The monolith is placed on the table rather than into reserves where it would have been destroyed.

The rules are silent on how the monolith is destroyed, only that it can not be destroyed due to enemy models being within 1 inch. Therefore it is logical to assume that any result of destroyed is countered by the monolith's special rule, regardless of origin.

No it isnt. The monolith mishaps and is put into reserves.

Models in reserve when the game ends are destroyed. It is not destroyed BY being within 1", it is destroyed by the game ending.

The two are separate. Your logic is flawed.

My logic is perfect... the cause of the mishap is an enemy unit being within 1 inch. The result is the monolith being destroyed. The method of destruction is being in reserve when the game ends.

Ergo, special rule comes into play and the monolith is not destroyed, but placed on the table.

Also, as stated in my first post on this, its not a serious point its just for my fun. The reason for this is I found the tone of this whole thread a little bit too serious and just wanted to mess with it.

A monolith deep striking and landing within 1 inch of an enemy model happens so rarely, that if/when it does why not just go with the flow of the game and decide based on house rules. If you and your opponent can't agree then get a 3rd vote or just flip a coin...

Your logic is flawed as you are conflating two separate events caused by two separate rules.

Your "logic" would require that everything in the game is caused by the first dice roll to determine sides.

ok fine, so tossing a coin appears to be out, I call heads by the way...

The monolith special rule specifies only that a monolith is not destroyed if there are enemy models within 1 inch when it arrives by deep strike.

It does not mention any subsequent requirements, such as being destroyed as a result of a specific roll on the mishap table.

The logical conclussion is simply that if there were enemy models within 1 inch when the monolith arrived and it would have been destroyed, it will not in fact be destroyed.

You have made an assumption that the monolith being destroyed because it was in reserves at the end of the game is a seperate event. However, the cause of it being in reserves was that there were enemy models within 1 inch when it arrived.

This logic does not apply to everything in the game as it is one specific rule which is being discussed.

And logic is not flawed simply because it produces an absurd result. Yes what I am proposing is absurd, I was well aware of this when I proposed it and it is also why I proposed it.

And by the way the coin landed on its edge, so it looks like either interpretation could apply...

By the way where do people stand on the issue that if models have to be moved out of the way, rather than being squished by a big falling monolith do they count as being tank shocked? (and no I don't really care, just another absurd loophole that the special rule and general rules don't cover)

Given you didnt declare a tank shock, no they dont....
It is a separate event as the cause of the "destroy" is not being within 1". Just being in reserves does that.

Your logic is flawed.

You're kind of missing the point here...

Over analysis of the rules just sucks all the fun out of the game. We can sit here all day and argue about who's logic is flawed (mine isn't by the way, its just absurd, subtle difference), but my point is simple.

Its an old codex written on old rules, you can argue all day about how to interpret and apply those rules but it doesn't matter as long as both sides agree and they enjoy the game.

By the way, I did declare a tank shock when I rolled the scatter dice and saw that I would have to "move" the monolith from the intended position :p (...and yes I am still being absurd)

Except you cannot declare a tank shock, as you tank shock instead of moving normally. Deepstrike is not moving normally. NEither is the scatter actual movement.

2 areas where you are wrong.

Also, you make have missed the point of a RULES forum. This is not a game being played right now. THis is outside of a game, and a place to discuss the actual rules and how they are interpreted. Feel free to not post if you feel that discussing rules not in a game somehow sucks the fun out of playing the game.....

I never for a moment thought this was about a game which was being played (which kind of makes the whole dicussion even odder, as its about a potential arguement which may come up if someone decides to do something and it goes wrong??).

And yes I know this is a rules forum to discuss the rules, but again its not actually happened so where is the actual need for such a serious and indepth discussion?? I still think that this point is a little bit too obscure and pedantic, and that over analysis of the rules sucks the fun out of actually playing the game (why not actually play test the different interpretations and see if it makes any difference, or if this would ever actually come up in practice??).

And once again, the tank shock thing is a totally absurd proposition, merely posed alongside my earlier absurd proposition, to highlight the above points. And I can't believe you even bothered to comment on it

And I have unsubscribed from this thread but please carry on without me. My point is, always has been and remains that it doesn't really matter. Just flip a coin or have a roll off (and don't worry if you both roll the same number, you can always re-roll) or declare a house rule.

grotblaster wrote:
1. I would assert that the rules are a series of proscribed actions to deal with gameplay situations. I.e. If a model is shooting, roll a die.
2. "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." This is fluff up to the comma. " it is not destroyed" is the action to be taken in a gameplay situation " if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are no other caveats to the the gameplay situation presented.
3. "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." This is an action to replace the destroy action in the prior sentence. Since it is replacing the " do not destroy" action, it must be done in accordance with the gameplay situation presented previously. This gameplay situation is "if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are still no additional caveats.

kirsanth wrote:Exactly. But it is only destroyed by models being within an inch if it rolls 1/3 of the odds on the mishap table.

The gameplay situation being addressed is not "if there are enemy within 1" when it arives AND it would be destroyed." At the time that would have been redundant, but it doesn't change the fact that the actions we are instructed to take are in response to "enemy within 1". When "do not destroy" is replaced with "move models", the prohibition of destroying is not added as a precursor to taking that action.

Examples:
Do not set your car on fire, if you arrive at the store. Instead, park your car. When do we park the car? When we get to the store, not only when we get to the store and it is about to burst into flames.

Lord - it was an absurd incorrect example, presumably making your other example not only absurd but incorrect.

Thanks for confirming you were simply trolling the thread.

Yes, it has come up. Do you assume noone deepstrikes monoliths, and that they dont do so within 12" of an enemy model?

That analogy is misleading as the original rule is based off of other conditions (main rulebook) Your analogy would be better suited if it were this.

Condition 1. When parking your car if it is next to another car roll a d6 to see if it explodes.

When parking your car at the mall it will not explode when parked next to another car, instead, move the other cars away.

Your analogies will not work because they have no conditions set before them such as the actual rules do.

grotblaster wrote:
Examples:
Do not set your car on fire, if you arrive at the store. Instead, park your car. When do we park the car? When we get to the store, not only when we get to the store and it is about to burst into flames.

I see a considerable difference between setting your car on fire and having it burst into flames.
One is a voluntary action the other a potentially catastrophic event.

Regardless, the example has no bearing on the discussion.

Try this instead.
There is a "No Parking" sign at the store.
Everyone who parks there will get a ticket.
Your car is different.
If you park there you will not get a ticket, instead the sign will be moved.

Now, will we moved the sign if you don't park there?
No, moving the sign is conditional upon you, and only you, parking there.

That's how a conditional expression works.

Every model in the game that deep strikes within 1" of an enemy model suffers a mishap, including the monolith.
Every model that deep strikes within 1" of an enemy model and rolls a '1' or '2' is destroyed, except the monolith.
Instead of the monolith being destroyed, move the enemy models.

The action of moving the enemy model occurs only if the monolith suffers a specific destroyed result.

And those conditions cannot be met unless the core deep strike rules have been followed.

Frankly, I am running out of ways to explain this simple concept.

The rule in the codex is replacing a rule in the rulebook. Like most chages to core rules in the codex, the rules are saying if a certain condition is met, follow the rules found here instead of any other.

My understanding is that you and others feel the condition is "if the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy model AND would be destroyed". This understanding can not come from the main rulebook, because these rules are not found there.

The rule section of the first sentence reads: "it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". What is the condition in this first sentence that triggers the instructions ot be followed? "if there are enemy within 1"." There is no other condition described.

The rules of the second section read: "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." So instead means in lieu, or replacing. What are these instructions replacing in the preceeding sentence? Since it is describing instructions to follow and not a condition to meet, I can only assume it means to replace the prior instructions. That prior instruction is "it is not destroyed."

Now by replacing the prior instruction with the new instructions we end up with "move models that are in the way... if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". The prior instructions do not suddenly become part of the condition that triggers this rule replacement. There is nothing in the rulebook, codex, or elsewhere to indicate that the replaced instructions should be included in the condition.

except it cannot be destroyed unless you involve the mishap chart.

which is where your argument still falls down, entirely. You attempt to ignore "destroyed" by pretending it isnt important, only the within 1" is. Except that isnt how the rules or the english language work.

"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

grotblaster wrote:"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

The step before that matters more.

What is required to destroy a deepstriking unit?

kirsanth wrote:

grotblaster wrote:"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

The step before that matters more.

What is required to destroy a deepstriking unit?

Lots of things. Mystic shots, bad mishap rolls, failure to come out of reserve prior to game end. The condition listed in the rule though is not "if it is destroyed when it arrives." You are inferring that the condition implies impending destruction because it prohibits destruction. This is not how it is written though.

You keep on missing the mishap chart.

The ONLY reason it would be destroyed in 5th ed is by rolling on the mishap chart.

You are trying to avoid rolling on the mishap chart, despite having no permission to do so.

grotblaster wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

grotblaster wrote:"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

The step before that matters more.

What is required to destroy a deepstriking unit?

Mystic shots, bad mishap rolls, failure to come out of reserve prior to game end.

Mystic shots happen after Deepstrike.
Failure to come out of reserves does not destroy the unit because of deepstrike, but they are treated as destroyed for kp/vp.

Mishap requires the roll to be destroyed.

Codex rules replace rulebook rules under specific conditions listed in the codex.

The steps for deepstriking according to the rule book:
Place unit in reserve with intention of deepstriking. Deploy as follows when available:
1. Place one model anywhere on the table.
2. Roll the scatter die. If it is a hit stay put. If an arrow roll 2d6 and move that many inches.
3. Move the model to its the end position. Place additional models in base contact with original model.
4. "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong." The controlling player must roll on the mishap table.

Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".
A blood angels squad with jump packs and DoA deepstrikes in. When the condition in their rule is met (arriving by deepstrike), they modify step 2 to roll only 1d6.
A drop pod deploys using deepstriking. "Should a drop pod scatter on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend of foe!), then reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required in order to avoid the obstacle." Follow steps 1-3 as normal. In step 4, if it meets certain conditions; "it scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model", replace the normal remedy (roll on the mishap table) with the codex remedy (reduce scatter distance). (Note btw that according to RAW you would roll on the mishap table if you end .5 inches from a model and not on top of it.)
A monolith deepstrikes in and follows steps 1-3. As with a drop pod, in step 4 certain steps are taken if the condition "enemies are within 1"" is met. A mishap only occurs upon the completion of steps 1-4. Since the monolith rules allow the placing of the model "by moving enemies" no mishap roll is ever taken.

The only question is whether the condition that triggers the special rule is "enemy units within 1" when it arrives" or "enemy units within 1" when it arrives and it would be destroyed." The only condition present in the sentence fragment "it is not destroyed, if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives" is the proximity of the enemy. It is not destroyed is not part of the condition, it is a possible remedy that should not be applied.

You are comparing apples to oranges in my opinion as these are separate issues about rules.

You say,

grotblaster wrote:
Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".

So lets say we take the next edition of 40k and they change deepstrike to "when deepstriking, roll a d6, on a 1-2 you roll scatter, on a 3-4 you land where you placed and on a 5-6 the model dies."

Does his avoiding scatter mean he gets to avoid the roll?

This is the situation the monolith is in, its old outdated rules with a new version. You have to apply the new BRB rules in a way that breaks the fewest rules. Which is applying the D6 roll to see what happens.

grotblaster wrote: Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".

Rather than quote your entire post, I'll just go with this one.

Following the rules, what would occur if I were to place Dante on the table 1/2" away from an enemy unit?

Melchiour wrote:You are comparing apples to oranges in my opinion as these are separate issues about rules.

You say,

grotblaster wrote:
Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".

So lets say we take the next edition of 40k and they change deepstrike to "when deepstriking, roll a d6, on a 1-2 you roll scatter, on a 3-4 you land where you placed and on a 5-6 the model dies."

Does his avoiding scatter mean he gets to avoid the roll?

This is the situation the monolith is in, its old outdated rules with a new version. You have to apply the new BRB rules in a way that breaks the fewest rules. Which is applying the D6 roll to see what happens.

Let's say his rules said "if Dante deepstrikes in, do not scatter. Instead, place him anywhere on the board." No matter what the next edition changed it to, I would apply the codex rule anytime "Dante deepstrikes in".

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote: Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".

Rather than quote your entire post, I'll just go with this one.

Following the rules, what would occur if I were to place Dante on the table 1/2" away from an enemy unit?

He would proceed through step 4 as normal, and finding that he met the criteria outlined for rolling on the mishap chart at the end of step 4, he would roll.

grotblaster wrote:

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote: Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".

Rather than quote your entire post, I'll just go with this one.

Following the rules, what would occur if I were to place Dante on the table 1/2" away from an enemy unit?

He would proceed through step 4 as normal, and finding that he met the criteria outlined for rolling on the mishap chart at the end of step 4, he would roll.

Correct! He has triggered a mishap and would roll on the mishap table.

Now what would happen if you placed a Monolith 1/2" away from an enemy unit?

You would roll for scatter as normal.
If you rolled a 'hit' you would remain there, triggering a mishap and forcing a roll on the mishap table.

grotblaster wrote:Codex rules replace rulebook rules under specific conditions listed in the codex.

Those conditions are being destroyed due to enemy models within 1". The rules have a situation where a unit is destroyed due to enemy models being within 1". The codex rule works just fine as written. Any further interpretation requires reference to or understanding of old rules...and old rules are old.

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote:

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote: Now Dante says do not scatter if deploying by deepstrike. Therefore, I ignore step 2 ( and only step 2) when meeting the condition of "deploying by deepstrike".

Rather than quote your entire post, I'll just go with this one.

Following the rules, what would occur if I were to place Dante on the table 1/2" away from an enemy unit?

He would proceed through step 4 as normal, and finding that he met the criteria outlined for rolling on the mishap chart at the end of step 4, he would roll.

Correct! He has triggered a mishap and would roll on the mishap table.

Now what would happen if you placed a Monolith 1/2" away from an enemy unit?

You would roll for scatter as normal.
If you rolled a 'hit' you would remain there, triggering a mishap and forcing a roll on the mishap table.

If Dante had an additional rule stating that under the condition "if enemy are within 1" then "move enemies minimum distance", he would not roll on the mishap table. The situation would be resolved prior to the end of step 4 allowing him to be legally placed, and thus no roll would be required.
The same occurs with the monolith.

This is still the area of the problem. The rule says that instead of being destroyed you move models. You have to roll to see if destroyed. For the rule to work as you want it would need to be written differently.

The rule says

"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."

The key here is the second sentence, specifically "instead." So INSTEAD of what? Instead of being destroyed? how do we know if it is destroyed. You have to use the mishap table.


So here are your options.

Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

OR

Instead (of being within one inch of enemies) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

I find option 1 correct, as most people do I believe.

I agree that is the fundamental difference in our understanding. You read it to mean"instead of being destroyed you move models".

The actual rule that sets the condition is "it is not destroyed, if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".

The condition as I understand it can only be "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". It is not destroyed is not part of the condition, it is a possible remedy that should not be applied.

Melchiour wrote:This is still the area of the problem. The rule says that instead of being destroyed you move models. You have to roll to see if destroyed. For the rule to work as you want it would need to be written differently.

edited wrote that unclearly

The Codex would have to say, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, if after arriving via deep strike it is within 1" of an enemy unit, it does not roll on the mishap table. Instead, move any enemy models the minimum distance necessary to make way for the Monolith."

But it doesn't! By sayng the Monolith is not destroyed, you are making an exception to 1 of 3 possible mishap results. And in no manner, way, shape or form does this give permission to ignore rolling for any mishap at all.

It really is just that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grotblaster wrote:
The actual rule that sets the condition is "it is not destroyed, if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".

Also, this↑ is incorrect, the rule does not have a comma between "destroyed" and "if".
Putting the comma there changes the context making it even more wrong.

Melchiour wrote:This is still the area of the problem. The rule says that instead of being destroyed you move models. You have to roll to see if destroyed. For the rule to work as you want it would need to be written differently.

The rule says

"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."

The key here is the second sentence, specifically "instead." So INSTEAD of what? Instead of being destroyed? how do we know if it is destroyed. You have to use the mishap table.

So here are your options.

Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

OR

Instead (of being within one inch of enemies) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith.

I find option 1 correct, as most people do I believe.

I see the options as:
1. Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance....if any enemy models are within 1" when the monolith arrives.
OR
2. Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance...if any enemy models are within 1" when the monolith arrives AND it will be destroyed otherwise.

I see only RAW support for option 1.

Unfortunately you are incorrect ... As has been posted and reposted ad nauseum, sorry if i dont feel the need to copy/paste 200 replies all saying the exact same thing while you ignore the clear RAW

IMO you are either trolling, or have a fundamental lack of understanding of the english language.

grotblaster wrote:

I see the options as:
1. Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance....if any enemy models are within 1" when the monolith arrives.
OR
2. Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance...if any enemy models are within 1" when the monolith arrives AND it will be destroyed otherwise.

I see only RAW support for option 1.

If you go this route. . .

How do you know it is being destroyed unless you roll on the table. Or do you not need to fill out both requirements? Being destroyed is a requirement for the rule to kick in.

RAW support really? Can I ignore the mishap table with my daemons too please? I mean you are and I see no support at all ...

Once again I'm sorry this is supported by 5th edition and only 1/3 times you'll get the desired result.

RAW it can only be destroyed by the mishap chart 1/3 times ... so you're skipping 2/3 potential rules to come to your conclusion

Melchiour wrote:

grotblaster wrote:

I see the options as:
1. Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance....if any enemy models are within 1" when the monolith arrives.
OR
2. Instead (of being destroyed) move any models that are in the way the minimum distance...if any enemy models are within 1" when the monolith arrives AND it will be destroyed otherwise.

I see only RAW support for option 1.

If you go this route. . .

How do you know it is being destroyed unless you roll on the table. Or do you not need to fill out both requirements? Being destroyed is a requirement for the rule to kick in.

Why is being destroyed a requirement for the rule to kick in? Option one meets all criteria spelled out in the rule. Instead of one possible outcome, I am instructed to enforce another outcome.

If you can enact the rule with just the 1 inch, why not enact it just for being destroyed?

Because the condition triggering the instructions is "enemy within 1" and not "being destroyed".

edit:spelling

I agree with Timewizard, et al.

The Monolith's rule, which worked one way within the context of the 3rd ed Deep Strike rules, now works a different way in the context of the 5th ed Deep Strike rules.

Being destroyed is now only 1of 3 possible consequences of landing within 1" of enemy units, and the Monolith's rules do not give it license to ignore the other 2.

grotblaster wrote:Because the condition triggering the instructions is "enemy within 1" and not "being destroyed".

edit:spelling

No. Enemy being within 1" triggers the mishap rule.

Rolling a destroyed result on the mishap rule triggers "...is not destroyed..."

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Timewizard, et al.

The Monolith's rule, which worked one way within the context of the 3rd ed Deep Strike rules, now works a different way in the context of the 5th ed Deep Strike rules.

Being destroyed is now only 1of 3 possible consequences of landing within 1" of enemy units, and the Monolith's rules do not give it license to ignore the other 2.

Thanks Mannahnin! But I don't believe that even all the king's horses and all the king's men would ever be able to convince grotblaster otherwise.

There will always be people who do not agree on certain things and that's okay. Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree and move on. I am happy this thread has remained mostly civil and polite. (mostly)

Melchiour wrote:There will always be people who do not agree on certain things and that's okay. Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree and move on. I am happy this thread has remained mostly civil and polite. (mostly)

Agreed. Moving on. Thanks for those who remained civil. If we meet at a tournament I'lll buy the first beer.

You'll recognize me as the sucker letting my Necron opponent move my models without rolling mishap first.

time wizard wrote:
No. Enemy being within 1" triggers the mishap rule.

Rolling a destroyed result on the mishap rule triggers "...is not destroyed..."

And there is the flaw in your argument. "...is not destroyed..." is not a condition of the Monolith rule, it's an artifact of it. The Monolith rule doesn't begin "If the Monolith is destroyed...." it makes a blanket statement the monolith "...is not destroyed". Those are two entirely different things. As stated previously, the Monolith rule takes affect prior to the the Mishap rule since it happens "...when it arrives."

So when monoliths deepstrike they are immune to being destroyed as an artifact of their rule?

So when monoliths deepstrike they are immune to being delayed as an artifact of their rule?

So when monoliths deepstrike they are immune to being misplaced as an artifact of their rule?

The rules do not back them.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:is not a condition of the Monolith rule, it's an artifact of it.

Okay, you got me here. I tried to google "rule artifact" and here is what I found;

You can write rules using business rule artifacts and technical rule artifacts.
There are three types of business rule artifact:
•business rules
•decision tables
•decision trees
You create business rule artifacts using the Business Action Language (BAL) and the vocabulary. The BAL is set up to automatically translate to the ILOG Rule Language (IRL). For business rules, the translation is a straightforward business rule to IRL mapping. For decision tables, rules are based on rows and for decision trees, they are based on nodes.

You'll have to explain what you mean regarding the rules for Monolith's deep striking being an artifact a little better. I'm not following your argument.

i have read most of the thread but im still confused can a monolith suffer mishap? and be destroyed?

Azzedar101 wrote:i have read most of the thread but im still confused can a monolith suffer mishap? and be destroyed?

Of course. Look at the deep strike rules. It lists the conditions that will trigger a deep strike mishap.
Then you roll on the mishap table.
1 of 3 possible results is destruction.

Azzedar101 wrote:i have read most of the thread but im still confused can a monolith suffer mishap? and be destroyed?

And be destroyed? No. Everyone agrees with this point. The contention is whether a Monolith actually has to roll on the mishap chart in the first place.

The answer to which is of course they do.

kill dem stunties wrote:The answer to which is of course they do.

/agree

Lordhat wrote:

kill dem stunties wrote:The answer to which is of course they do.

/agree

QFT

Lordhat wrote:

Azzedar101 wrote:i have read most of the thread but im still confused can a monolith suffer mishap? and be destroyed?

And be destroyed? No. Everyone agrees with this point. The contention is whether a Monolith actually has to roll on the mishap chart in the first place.

Lordhat, you're reading too much into Azzedar's question. He didn't ask whether the Monolith can be destroyed by Deep Striking within 1" of the enemy (which we all agree it can't), but whether it can Mishap and be destroyed in general. Which it still can by scattering into Impassible or off the table.

Mannahnin wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

Azzedar101 wrote:i have read most of the thread but im still confused can a monolith suffer mishap? and be destroyed?

And be destroyed? No. Everyone agrees with this point. The contention is whether a Monolith actually has to roll on the mishap chart in the first place.

Lordhat, you're reading too much into Azzedar's question. He didn't ask whether the Monolith can be destroyed by Deep Striking within 1" of the enemy (which we all agree it can't), but whether it can Mishap and be destroyed in general. Which it still can by scattering into Impassible or off the table.

Or, on top of friendly models.

Since the discussion keeps going, please indulge me by answering one last question:

If my codex says “Because the tank is slow, do not move it 6” if it moves in the movement phase. Instead, move 4” inches.

A new edition comes out that says in the movement phase roll a die for vehicles. On a 1-2 you move 6”, a 3-4 you move 9” and a 5-6 you move 12”. If I move this tank in the new edition, do I move 4”, 9” or 12” depending on my roll or do I always move 4”?

Thanks.

grotblaster wrote:Since the discussion keeps going, please indulge me by answering one last question:

If my codex says “Because the tank is slow, do not move it 6” if it moves in the movement phase. Instead, move 4” inches.

A new edition comes out that says in the movement phase roll a die for vehicles. On a 1-2 you move 6”, a 3-4 you move 9” and a 5-6 you move 12”. If I move this tank in the new edition, do I move 4”, 9” or 12” depending on my roll or do I always move 4”?

Thanks.

A more correct question would be:

If my codex says “Because the tank is slow, it may only move up to 6” if it moves in the movement phase.

A new edition comes out that says in the movement phase roll a die for vehicles. On a 1-2 you move 2”, a 3-4 you move 5” and a 5-6 you move 10”. If I move this tank in the new edition, do I move 2”, 5” or 10” depending on my roll or do I always move 6”? The answer is of course you can move 2", 5" or 6" (as you can't move more than 6" but nothing in the codex rule excludes the other 2 options.

that's alot more like the monolith ... Been looking at it for a while going ... WTH ...

My Disclaimer: Everything in my post is only my opinion of how I read the RAW. I do not think I’m smarter than the other users here nor do I think I know the rules any better. I also had to make a new account since my older one isn't allowing me to log in even after a password reset but I have spent a lot more than just today reading the forums here but very rarely post. Sorry about the extended post I wanted to be as clear and concise as possible so that everyone in the forum could understand my line of thinking even if they do not agree with it. I also did not include analogies as I don't think they hold water in a RAW type argument.

The argument to me here seems to center around when the Necron player may use the Monolith Deep Strike special rule in place of the normal Deep Strike rule in the 5th edition codex. As soon as the Necron Codex may intervene as it were, then everything following in the codex takes precedence.

Necron codex states: Deep Strike: A Monolith may therefore be deployed by Deep Strike if the special rules for the mission being played include it. Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith

The first things I look at are the preconditions of any special rule that must be met so that I can use said special rule and the effects of it. Also, once I meet the pre-conditions I can exclude the main rule book unless part of the effects of that special rule point back to the main rule book (i.e. Pain Token granting a special rule that points back to the main rule book)

So the first part of the special rule "A Monolith may therefore be deployed by Deep Strike if the special rules for the mission being played include it" grants the Monolith the ability to Deep Strike, which points the player back to the main rule book to use the Deep Strike special rule as it is not defined in the codex. Then I start the deep striking process from the main rule book once I of course have met the preconditions of making reserve roles.

1. Place Monolith on the table at least 1” away from an enemy/friendly model, and not in impassible terrain.
2. Roll for Scatter

Now the debate is when can the rest of the Monolith special rule be activated, which of course can only be determined by finding what the "Initial" pre-conditions of the rule are. Here we have a very clear if statement that outlines when the rule first comes into play " if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives". If any other main rulebook condition occurs other than what is in this if statement then the rule never comes into play, which is why impassable terrain, friendly models, and missing the table are all not friends of the Monolith.

So say that initial pre-condition is met, we now put the main rule book back onto the table and can now use the codex, where we have our effects. "it is not destroyed, instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith". I have taken the specific part of the sentence "it is not destroyed" out because it is not part of the initial pre-conditions (if it where it would say to the effect of "as a result of the monolith being destroyed/if the monolith is destroyed"). It is not destroyed is being used in the sentence as a reference to the second sentence and is what "Instead" in the second sentence is referring to.

It is not destroyed is the initial effect of the set pre-conditions of the Monolith Deep Strike special rule, not a new precondition that must be met. Because there is no reference to look back at the main rule book because the Monolith being destroyed isn't a special rule that must be referred to, one can continue on with the codex effects without ever having to refer back to the main rule book.

The next effect says that instead of being destroyed the Monolith may move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith. It doesn't matter that the Monolith wouldn't be destroyed 100% of the time because after the special rule was activated with the initially met pre-conditions there was never again a reference from the codex stating that the player must refer back to the main rule book. A main problem that most old codex’s get into when they refer to rules that no longer exist in the main rule book.

With that said the Monolith can enact its ability to avoid destruction and instead move all enemy models out of the way, and even though we know that its destruction doesn't always apply from the mishap table, we never got to it because the initial conditions of the Monolith's Deep Strike special ability were met before it.

zeshin wrote:

grotblaster wrote:Since the discussion keeps going, please indulge me by answering one last question:

If my codex says “Because the tank is slow, do not move it 6” if it moves in the movement phase. Instead, move 4” inches.

A new edition comes out that says in the movement phase roll a die for vehicles. On a 1-2 you move 6”, a 3-4 you move 9” and a 5-6 you move 12”. If I move this tank in the new edition, do I move 4”, 9” or 12” depending on my roll or do I always move 4”?

Thanks.

A more correct question would be:

If my codex says “Because the tank is slow, it may only move up to 6” if it moves in the movement phase.

A new edition comes out that says in the movement phase roll a die for vehicles. On a 1-2 you move 2”, a 3-4 you move 5” and a 5-6 you move 10”. If I move this tank in the new edition, do I move 2”, 5” or 10” depending on my roll or do I always move 6”? The answer is of course you can move 2", 5" or 6" (as you can't move more than 6" but nothing in the codex rule excludes the other 2 options.

It is important retain the structure of the rule which your example does not do.

The current rule:
"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...."
Structure is [Fluff], [prohibition from using normal rulebook action] if [condition under which normal action does not take place]. Instead, [replacement for normal rulebook action].

As you point out, movement rates can be variable, while being destroyed is not. I understand RoF to be static, so let's use that instead.

So instead let's say the codex reads "Because the tank is slow, its assault cannon does not fire 4 shots if firing in the shooting phase. Instead it fires 3 shots."

The new rulebook says assault cannons roll a die when firing in the shooting phase. 1-2 it fires 2 shots, 3-4 it fires 4 shots, 5-6 it fires 6 shots. Does my tank's assault cannon fire 2,3,or 6 shots depending on the roll or always 3 shots?

You do not change or ignore rules or parts of rules that are not overwritten.

If you are not given permission to ignore being delayed or misplaced because of deepstrike, you do not.

See: Tau target priority test requiring wargear.

Kirsanth,
Please humor me for a moment.
In your opinion, how many times would the assault cannon above fire and why?
Thanks.

It would vary.

The example states that instead of 4, 3 is done.

There is no allowance to replace 6 with 3 any more than there is to replace 4 with 6.

If I am reading your post correctly.

Editing to add:
If you had just started playing 40k and had no idea the monolith rules were old, how could you assert that a monolith can ignore being delayed or misplaced?

kirsanth wrote:You do not change or ignore rules or parts of rules that are not overwritten.

If you are not given permission to ignore being delayed or misplaced because of deepstrike, you do not.

See: Tau target priority test requiring wargear.

On the contrary, the Monolith doesn't have to role on the Mishap table because the codex gives a clear set of effects as to what happens after the conditions of its special rule are met, and those are included in "if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives". Unless someone has a very valid reason as to why "it is not destroyed" is somehow a new precondition or a reason that someone would have to refer back to the main rulebook after the the initial precondition is met, then as RAW IMHO the Monolith does not mishap because in the order of Deep Striking steps it does not get that far.

Being destroyed is the result that the rule allows to be avoided.

To say otherwise is mis-construing the rules.

Kirsanth,
Ok thanks again. I would say it always fires 3 times if firing in the shooting phase regardless of whether 4 shots were going to be fired otherwise. We consistently disagree.

kirsanth wrote:
Editing to add:
If you had just started playing 40k and had no idea the monolith rules were old, how could you assert that a monolith can ignore being delayed or misplaced?

Being destroyed is the result that the rule allows to be avoided.

To say otherwise is mis-construing the rules.

1st post-
For someone just starting 40k I honestly think that they could very easily convinced that the rules work with either argument. Now without outside interference I think its really all how they interpret the rules on their own and their line of thinking.

2nd post-
Yes it being destroyed is the initial "effect" that the rule allows to be avoided, but this is not a new pre-condition as it were and is not a necessary result to get to the next effect of instead moving the enemy models. If the initial pre-condition of "if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives" was read correctly then the player has already veered away from the main rulebook and there is no referrence to look back into the rulebook for any rule clarification, the codex and all the effects take precedence from that point on. Even if not ALL the effects may apply in the new rules.

It it most certainly not mis-contruing the rules

Edit: Small grammer edit

grotblaster wrote:Kirsanth,
Ok thanks again. I would say it always fires 3 times if firing in the shooting phase regardless of whether 4 shots were going to be fired otherwise. We consistently disagree.

I noticed that too. If you noticed my first few posts as well, I realize almost everyone plays the way you are asserting. We do, generally. It is not supported, but it is in line with the original rules--and it is not like giving Necrons an edge makes them unbeatable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nior Eternal wrote:
2nd post-
Yes it being destroyed is the initial "effect" that the rule allows to be avoided,

And yet the rule does not allow misplaced or delayed to be avoided.
Until you know which it is, there is no rule saying that the MISHAP is avoided.

I did notice and certainly agree that regardless of how you play: at the end of the day it's just a question of whether or not the necron player gets to put another toy or two on the table before he phases out

kirsanth wrote: And yet the rule does not allow misplaced or delayed to be avoided.
Until you know which it is, there is no rule saying that the MISHAP is avoided.

We may have to agree to disagree on the RAW then. The way I read the RAW is the Monolith doesn't have to have a reason to avoid the other two results because "if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives" happens before you roll on the mishap table and satisfies the pre-conditions of its special rule. It is not destroyed was not part of the "If statement" and therefore does not need to be met in order to use the codex special rule and veer off from the main rule book. Once you meet the preconditions of a special rule you do not need to refer back to the main rule book unless the special rule tells you to. In this case it does not.

The rule is not "if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives, move them".

"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."
There is a period there. The sentence ends.
The next part is what happens instead of being destroyed thus the "instead" that it starts with.

"Instead, move any models that are in the way"

So.
You are not allowed to move the models instead of being delayed.
You are not allowed to move the models instead of being misplaced.

Its not "if there is an enemy within 1 inch", its if there is an enemy within 1 inch & it would be destroyed, instead.

kill dem stunties wrote:Its not "if there is an enemy within 1 inch", its if there is an enemy within 1 inch & it would be destroyed, instead.

Your changing how the wording is, there is not & it would be destroyed. Its " it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives". It being destroyed is not and never was a pre-condition for the rule to take effect. It is part of the rules effects and happens before any role on the mishap table is made. It doesn't need to have a rule against the mishap table as the rule is triggered before the mishap table is triggered. It doesn't need to be destroyed becuase that part of the rule was not in addition to "if there are enemy within 1” when it arrives" but instead part of its effects. Its clear and that is RAW.

Nior Eternal wrote: Its clear and that is RAW.

Neither is true.
I quoted the rules and did not change the wording.

What many here are losing sight of is the very basics of our game.

Look for a moment at page vi and vii of the rulebook. These pages detail what you need to play the game of Warhammer 40K.

One of the items listed is the Rulebook.

The next page refers to building an army, and it is here that we are told it is a good idea to get hold of the codex.

So to play the game, you need a rulebook first. That is why they are sometimes referred to as the core rules.

The individual codex details the traits of the units in the army and includes specific rules that an army may follow.

Like the Space Marine Codex where under drop pods, we find that if a pod scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model we reduce the scatter distance.

How do we arrive at this situation? By following the rules for deep striking in the core rulebook. Here's what happens.

I place the drop pod on the table. I roll for scatter. Say I roll an arrow. I then roll 2D6. The pod scatters that number of inches in that direction. Now lets say that scattering that far will land the pod on another model. The rulebook says that I have suffered a mishap and will roll on the mishap table.

But wait! The Space Marine codex says that if the pod scatters onto another model, I reduce the distance to avoid the obstacle. I do so.
I have now followed the core rules and the special rule in the Space Marine Codex.

Now lets try this with the Monolith. I place the Monolith on the table. I roll for scatter. Say I roll an arrow. I then roll 2D6. The Monolith scatters that number of inches in that direction. Now lets say that scattering that far will land the Monolith within 1" of an enemy model. The rulebook says that I have suffered a mishap and will roll on the mishap table. Now I roll on the mishap table. If I roll a '1' or '2' the Monolith is destroyed.

But wait! The Necron Codex says that if the Monolith scatters (arrives) within 1" of an enemy model, it is not destroyed. Instead, the enemy model(s) are moved to make room for the monolith. I do so.
I have now followed the core rules and the special rule in the Necron Codex.

It is true that a special rule in a codex can and will overrule the special rule in the core rules, but you can't get to that point without following the core rules first!

time wizard wrote:
But wait! The Necron Codex says that if the Monolith scatters (arrives) within 1" of an enemy model, it is not destroyed. Instead, the enemy model(s) are moved to make room for the monolith. I do so.
I have now followed the core rules and the special rule in the Necron Codex.

It is true that a special rule in a codex can and will overrule the special rule in the core rules, but you can't get to that point without following the core rules first!

The Monolith has a special rule for deep striking called Deep Strike. This rule differs from the BRB rule by the same name as such it takes precedence to (replaces) the one in the rulebook. The Monolith's special deepstike rule is the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on the enemy instead move the enemy out of the way.

It's that simple. Special codex rule trumps general BRB rule.

Incorrect, as it does not tell you how to resolve deepstrike. For example it has no instructions on how to place an initial "marker" model, and so on.

Nice try but 2/10

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith has a special rule for deep striking called Deep Strike. This rule differs from the BRB rule by the same name as such it takes precedence to (replaces) the one in the rulebook. The Monolith's special deepstike rule is the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on the enemy instead move the enemy out of the way.
It's that simple. Special codex rule trumps general BRB rule.

Let's assume that you're correct for a minute. Where do you place the monolith on the table? How far does the monolith scatter?

Also, you can only use your special Deep Strike rule if "the special rules for the mission being played allow it." (C:N P21) I'm afraid that none of the 40K missions mention the special Monolith Deep Strike rule.

It isn't a new rule. You're allowed to deploy by deep strike and follow the rules in the rule book with the exceptions listed. If you get to a situation where the monolith would be destroyed due to being within 1" of enemy models (not friendly models, table edges or impassable terrain) then you can move those models.

time wizard wrote:
Like the Space Marine Codex where under drop pods, we find that if a pod scatters on top of impassable terrain or another model we reduce the scatter distance.
How do we arrive at this situation? By following the rules for deep striking in the core rulebook. Here's what happens.
I place the drop pod on the table. I roll for scatter. Say I roll an arrow. I then roll 2D6. The pod scatters that number of inches in that direction. Now lets say that scattering that far will land the pod on another model. The rulebook says that I have suffered a mishap and will roll on the mishap table.
But wait! The Space Marine codex says that if the pod scatters onto another model, I reduce the distance to avoid the obstacle. I do so.
I have now followed the core rules and the special rule in the Space Marine Codex.
Now lets try this with the Monolith. I place the Monolith on the table. I roll for scatter. Say I roll an arrow. I then roll 2D6. The Monolith scatters that number of inches in that direction. Now lets say that scattering that far will land the Monolith within 1" of an enemy model. The rulebook says that I have suffered a mishap and will roll on the mishap table.

But wait! The codex says I have a special rule if the monolith lands within 1" of a model. What does it say happens under this circumstance? The monolith is not destroyed. Ok, check. What happens instead? The models are moved to make room. I do so.
Excellent. Rulebook and codex rules followed.

that was 4th edition when mishaps destroyed you outright ... now there's a 2/3 chance you will not be destroyed ... If you wouldnt be destroyed why would I bother getting outta your way?

Remember a mishap is no longer a destroyed ...

TheGreatAvatar wrote:It's that simple. Special codex rule trumps general BRB rule.

When it applies, but since destroying the monolith is not the same as rolling mishap. . . oh wait. . .

The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on enemy models is irrelevant in fifth addition. The enemy models are moved out of the way, per the codex rules.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The fact . . .

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on enemy models is irrelevant in fifth addition. The enemy models are moved out of the way, per the codex rules.

There are two ways that rule can be read:

If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of being destroyed] move the enemy out of the way.
or
If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of landing within 1" of the enemy] move the enemy out of the way.

Now, the first interpretation keeps the monolith from being immune to being destroyed (by mishaps involving enemy models) but allows other results. The second makes it immune to all mishaps (involving enemy models). Nothing in the rule suggests that it was supposed to be immune to all mishaps (involving enemy models)

Hey Avatar, why isn't it relevant? I could swear it's on the mishap table ... that would make it ... whats that word ... relevant?

TGA - so now you're entirely ignoring that 5th edition has a mishap table?

I assume you are retracting your "monolith special DS rule" argument now?

Why is the fact the monolith isn't destroyed when it lands on the enemy a factor in the use of the mishap table? The special rule grants a special benefit, NOT being destroyed from landing on enemy models. This special benefit is NOT a condition of the rest of the rule, moving the enemy models out of the way.

As I've pointed out, this special benefit is moot in the 5th addition since landing on enemy models no longer results in the unit immediately being destroyed. The Monolith rule covers moving the enemy models out of the way.

So, just to get this straight, you are suggesting that the rule should be read as follows:

If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of landing within 1" of the enemy] move the enemy out of the way.

TheGreatAvatar wrote: Why is the fact the monolith isn't destroyed when it lands on the enemy a factor in the use of the mishap table?

Because being destroyed due to landing on any model or within 1" of an enemy model necessitates a roll on the mishap table, one possible result of which is "destroyed"

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The special rule grants a special benefit, NOT being destroyed from landing on enemy models.

That is incorrect. The special rule only covers landing within 1" of an enemy model. If a Monolith scatters on top of a model and rolls a '1' or '2' on the mishap table it is destroyed.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:This special benefit is NOT a condition of the rest of the rule, moving the enemy models out of the way.

That is correct. If, for example, the Monolith rolls a '3' it goes back into reserve and the enemy models remain in situ.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:As I've pointed out, this special benefit is moot in the 5th addition since landing on enemy models no longer results in the unit immediately being destroyed.

Correct again. Destruction is only one of 3 possibilites occurring from a deep strike mishap. Any model that suffers a mishap must roll on the mishap table.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith rule covers moving the enemy models out of the way.

Yes, but only if the monolith would otherwise suffer a "destroyed" mishap result. The other 2 possible mishap results would be followed normally.

Scott-S6 wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on enemy models is irrelevant in fifth addition. The enemy models are moved out of the way, per the codex rules.

There are two ways that rule can be read:

If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of being destroyed] move the enemy out of the way.
or
If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of landing within 1" of the enemy] move the enemy out of the way.

Now, the first interpretation keeps the monolith from being immune to being destroyed (by mishaps involving enemy models) but allows other results. The second makes it immune to all mishaps (involving enemy models). Nothing in the rule suggests that it was supposed to be immune to all mishaps (involving enemy models)

Bringing in the animal support as well
I think we all agree that the first interpretation above is correct. What we disagree on is whether the prescribed action, "moving models" is implemented when the monolith is "within 1"of enemy models" or when it would be destroyed.

grotblaster wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of being destroyed] move the enemy out of the way.
or
If the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy it is not destroyed. Instead [of landing within 1" of the enemy] move the enemy out of the way.

I think we all agree that the first interpretation above is correct. What we disagree on is whether the prescribed action, "moving models" is implemented when the monolith is "within 1"of enemy models" or when it would be destroyed.

If the first interpretation is correct then the second sentence is not triggered until the monolith is about to be destroyed.

In order to trigger the moving simply because the monolith is within 1" the second interpretation would have to be correct and I think that interpretation is a pretty major stretch.

I draw a chance card in Monopoly. It says, "Because of your slumlord tactics, Do not pass go and do not collect $200 if you drew this card. Instead, proceed directly to jail."
This is read as "If you drew this card, do not pass go and do not collect $200. Instead [of passing go and collecting $200] go directly to jail."

It seems very clear that the action of "proceeding directly to jail" replaces "passing go and collecting $200".

I am on a board square where the "Go" square is between me and jail, so I proceed to jail instead. But what if I'm on a square where I can proceed directly to jail without passing "go". Do I not go to jail now?

Just because "proceed directly to jail" replaces "passing go..." doesn't mean that I ignore the directive to proceed to jail if I would not be passing go in the process. Instead, I proceed to jail anytime I "drew this card".

Your example is invalid. The only command to go anywhere is in the instead clause which, as you say, is triggered by passing go. But nothing is telling you to go anywhere so it won't be triggered. Rules Fail. You don't go to jail instead of doing something - you go to jail regardless.
(FYI, the card actually says: Go directly to Jail – do not pass Go, do not collect $200)

Try this: If you draw an ace then roll a die, a 6 does not count. Instead, substitute the value 5." Do you use the value of 5 whenever you roll a die or only on a result of a 6?

The above is the same form as the monolith rule. The always-move-the-enemy crowd is arguing that, in the above example, the value of 5 would be used no matter what the die roll was. The only-move-the-enemy-when-the-monolith-rolls-a-destroyed-result crowd is arguing that you would only substitute the value 5 when a 6 is rolled.

Scott-S6 wrote:Try this: If you draw an ace then roll a die, a 6 does not count. Instead, substitute the value 5." Do you use the value of 5 whenever you roll a die or only on a result of a 6?

The above is the same form as the monolith rule. The always-move-the-enemy crowd is arguing that, in the above example, the value of 5 would be used no matter what the die roll was. The only-move-the-enemy-when-the-monolith-rolls-a-destroyed-result crowd is arguing that you would only substitute the value 5 when a 6 is rolled.

Destroyed is static not variable. Try a slight variation on yours: "If you draw an ace, do not roll a d6. Instead, substitute the value 5. " A new edition comes out that normally uses a d8 if you draw an ace. I would still use the value of 5 because that is the instruction for when I draw an ace. Not when I would roll a d6.

grotblaster wrote:Destroyed is static not variable.

But destroyed is variable now, it does not follow automatically from being within 1" of the enemy.

That's the whole point.

Destroyed is one static outcome of a variable roll. In the example above would you roll a d8 or use the value 5?

When told to replace 6 with 5, to replace anything else (including any roll that may give results) is breaking rules.

To further throw a wrench into this discussion, I was thinking about what would happen if a Monolith were to DS and scatter onto a unit of jump infantry, jetbikes, or skimmers that they themselves were on top of impassable terrain as detailed on page 78 of the BRB. Now the Monolith has two separate ways of mishap, one from the enemy unit and one from the impassable terrain. This raises even further questions. If, however you believe the Monolith gets to this result, the Monolith isn't destroyed by being within an inch of the enemy unit, they would then have to move the minimum distance required to:

A) be more than 1" away from the Monolith

B) outside the impassable terrain if it is no longer able to be place as such in the impassable terrain

C) a combination of both and/or something else

For those models force to move out/through the impassable terrain, this would trigger dangerous terrain test, would it not?

Then you have to deal with the second mishap from the impassable terrain itself. If the Monolith suffers any of the mishap table results, then moving the enemy unit that was in the difficult terrain becomes moot, IMO, other than for possible dangerous terrain tests. There is no clear timing on which mishap to apply first, or both happen at the same time, but the results of one (the impassable terrain) clearly alters the results of the other (the enemy unit in said impassible terrain) either 1/3 or 100% of the time depending on your opinion in this thread. I suppose my main question is, "How is a Monolith that scatters onto a unit that itself is also in impassable terrain resolved?" How that question is answered can help determine the answers to the myriad of other questions that the specific scenario I described encounters. I would like to think that this scenario demonstrates how the Monolith is not entitled to ignore the mishap table for being within 1" of an enemy unit, as that has consequences detailed as above. Thoughts?

Did I break the thread? Anyone have some thoughts on my questions?

This is why there is a problem with thinking a Monolith arriving within 1" of an enemy unit moves it out of the way.

The rules for mishaps are clear.
Scatter or arrive off the table, on top of a friendly model, in impassable terrain or on top or within 1" of an enemy model and you have suffered a deep strike mishap.

Landing in impassable terrain and within 1" of an enemy model makes no difference, you have still suffered a mishap.

In the case of a Monolith, it makes no difference if it scatters within 1" of an enemy model and in impassable terrain, it has suffered a mishap and if it rolls 'destroyed' then it is.

It is only in the one situation where is scatters within 1" of an enemy model, but not in impassable terrain or on top of a friendly model or off the table and rolls a 'destroyed' result on the mishap table that the enemy models are moved out of the way.

Why would that be a problem? In the situation described, follow steps 1-4 as described earlier.
When you get to 4 you move models out of the way.
At the end of step 4 you check to see if any of the conditions apply to roll on the chart.
Yep, still over impassable terrain.
Roll and apply result.

In fact, I would say this results in a cleaner and clearer way to resolve the situation above.

grotblaster wrote:
BTW- Even under your reading of the rules, if a destroyed result is rolled, you're still moving models as described.

Explain this please?

I said if it scatters into impassable terrain and also within 1" of an enemy model and rolls a destroyed result on the mishap table it is destroyed.

No enemy models are moved, the monolith is destroyed. Period.

Was editing as you typed.
As above, models are moved when "enemies are within 1" when Monolith arrives". Checking for mishap occurs after the conclusion of normal deepstriking sequence which the monolith special rule interrupts.

grotblaster wrote: models are moved when "enemies are within 1" when Monolith arrives".

instead of being destroyed. Not instead of rolling to determine if destroyed.

Still.

I realize we disagree, but at least post the whole rule.

Grot - no, the whole point is that they are moved instead of the monolith being destroyed. Which is after you roll on the table.

Kirsanth,
The whole rule includes far more than that as well. I didn't post the whole thing since it's been posted ad naseum previously. Not meaning to purposely leave anything out. Just figured everyone knows the whole rule by post 150 or so in this thread .

Oh, and you didn't break the thread evil lamp. I think we're just tired of rehashing.

grotblaster wrote:
Oh, and you didn't break the thread evil lamp. I think we're just tired of rehashing.

This, at least, is something we can all agree on!

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote:
Oh, and you didn't break the thread evil lamp. I think we're just tired of rehashing.

This, at least, is something we can all agree on!

Ok, cool. Just so I am clear, if a Monolith scatters within 1" of enemy models that are in impassable terrain, you only roll once, not one time for each mishap, and resolve from there. Thanks.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:Ok, cool. Just so I am clear, if a Monolith scatters within 1" of enemy models that are in impassable terrain, you only roll once, not one time for each mishap, and resolve from there. Thanks.

That would hold true for any deep striking unit that suffered multiple mishaps.