It states that a monolith doesnt get destroyed if it deepstrikes within 1" of the enemy. Instead it moves them as far as needed out of the way.

Really cheesy tactic question:

Can I use this to deepstrike my monolith in the middle of a castled imperial guardsman player and make him scoot all of his tanks out of the way?

I edited the pull to cover the actual question at hand.

Yes.

Tanks are models too They move.

Expect them to dig out argument that you still have to take mishap unless you roll a destroyed result though, due to the archaic wording of the Monolith's rule (back when if you mishapped you died, period).

That said, it's not necessarily a good idea to do so, depending on the enemy force

Ascalam wrote:Yes.

Tanks are models too They move.

Expect them to dig out argument that you still have to take mishap unless you roll a destroyed result though, due to the archaic wording of the Monolith's rule (back when if you mishapped you died, period).

That said, it's not necessarily a good idea to do so, depending on the enemy force

Gauss Flux arc is so much better when hitting chimera side armor.

Too true

Rear is even better, especially on vindicator walls like my usual SW opponent likes building

Ascalam wrote:Too true

Rear is even better, especially on vindicator walls like my usual SW opponent likes building

Although do you have to be able to place the model before rolling to scatter? Or can you just pick a point?

Pick a point. Make sure it's not too near scenery (as that can still mishap you) then roll scatter and drop

yea I still make them roll on the chart, 2/3 times its not destroyed after all valid tactic though worth the risk, maybe

Tomb King wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Too true

Rear is even better, especially on vindicator walls like my usual SW opponent likes building

Although do you have to be able to place the model before rolling to scatter? Or can you just pick a point?

That's a debatable point. The rulebook tells you that the first step in deep striking is to place the model on the table. You then roll for scatter.

There's 3 ways to interpret this:

The overly literal approach: You have to be able to physically place the model onto the table. If there is anything between your model and the table, you can't deep strike there. This includes pieces of area terrain, as they aren't the actual table. If you're playing with a battle board, tough luck, the entire table is blocked.

The "I'm an a hole" approach: You have to physically place your model onto the table. If your opponent's models are in the way, you just ignore them and place your model onto the board. Yes, this means the rulebook is granting you permission to crush your opponent's minis into dust.

The reasonable approach: You have to place the model onto to table. But, your opponents minis are in the same location you want to place your model. So, you point to "wobbly model syndrome" and both you and your opponent pretend the two models are occupying the same space. You then proceed to play a fun game where everyone wins.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:yea I still make them roll on the chart, 2/3 times its not destroyed after all valid tactic though worth the risk, maybe

I rule against your comment as the wording seems to go against that kind of a ruling. The destroying part is just half of it. It sas Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith. Hate to break it to you but if you move the models then there is no mishap and I wont roll on any chart in a tournament.

Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:yea I still make them roll on the chart, 2/3 times its not destroyed after all valid tactic though worth the risk, maybe

I rule against your comment as the wording seems to go against that kind of a ruling. The destroying part is just half of it. It sas Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith. Hate to break it to you but if you move the models then there is no mishap and I wont roll on any chart in a tournament.

And then they could turn around and argue with you that it states its not destroyed if they are within 1" when it arrives, but it says nothing about that it doesn't mishap if it lands on them. It actually states it may arrive by deepstrike and isnt destroyed, so then you would have to refer to the DS rules, that states if you have them within 1" or you land on top of them, you take a mishap. The only consolation is if they rolla 1 or 2, its negated, because of the Monoliths special rule.

So the real argument I would have would be what do you do if the Monolith DS's and rolls a 1 or 2 on the table?? Re roll, ignore it, or what??

Galador wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:yea I still make them roll on the chart, 2/3 times its not destroyed after all valid tactic though worth the risk, maybe

I rule against your comment as the wording seems to go against that kind of a ruling. The destroying part is just half of it. It sas Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith. Hate to break it to you but if you move the models then there is no mishap and I wont roll on any chart in a tournament.

And then they could turn around and argue with you that it states its not destroyed if they are within 1" when it arrives, but it says nothing about that it doesn't mishap if it lands on them. It actually states it may arrive by deepstrike and isnt destroyed, so then you would have to refer to the DS rules, that states if you have them within 1" or you land on top of them, you take a mishap. The only consolation is if they rolla 1 or 2, its negated, because of the Monoliths special rule.

So the real argument I would have would be what do you do if the Monolith DS's and rolls a 1 or 2 on the table?? Re roll, ignore it, or what??

I put up a poll for it.

yep, the only mishap that the Monolith ignores is the destroyed result. Roll either of the others and there is no call to move the enemy models as the instead of being destroyed' clause doesn't kick in.

don_mondo wrote:yep, the only mishap that the Monolith ignores is the destroyed result. Roll either of the others and there is no call to move the enemy models as the instead of being destroyed' clause doesn't kick in.

well if its the last turn of the game and it mishaps and rolls to go back to reserves then that would result in a destroyed result. Would it counter this as well then?

Nope, because it's not a destroyed result on the chart.

don_mondo wrote:Nope, because it's not a destroyed result on the chart.

LOL where in the wording of not being destroyed does it mention a chart?

Hmmm, good point. I'll take a look at the rules when I get home to my books, and get back to you. Fair enough?

Tomb King wrote:LOL where in the wording of not being destroyed does it mention a chart?

Where in the wording of not being destroyed does it mention what occurs if it is delayed?

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:LOL where in the wording of not being destroyed does it mention a chart?

Where in the wording of not being destroyed does it mention what occurs if it is delayed?

Hence it isnt delayed

Monolith really needs an update

Most of the problem stems from the unit rules being written for 3rd, not 5th...

OK, here's the phrasing in the codex:

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

OK, so it's not destroyed by landing within a inch of enemy models, so it gets to ignore that one item on the Mishap chart. Nothing permits it to ignore the other two results, just as nothing permits it to avoid rolling on the mishap chart. So, let's say that it is turn 7 and your Monolith mishaps and Delayed is rolled. It goes back into reserves. Is it destroyed by being placed into reserves? No. When the game ends, it is destroyed as a result of still being in reserves, but the actual act of placing it into reserves did not destroy it.

So yep, IMO, nothing changes due to it being the last turn of the game.

Thats cool, but I thought deep striking disallowed shooting unless youre a Land Raider? It doesnt say anything about being able to fire the turn it comes in......

don_mondo wrote:OK, here's the phrasing in the codex:

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

OK, so it's not destroyed by landing within a inch of enemy models, so it gets to ignore that one item on the Mishap chart. Nothing permits it to ignore the other two results, just as nothing permits it to avoid rolling on the mishap chart. So, let's say that it is turn 7 and your Monolith mishaps and Delayed is rolled. It goes back into reserves. Is it destroyed by being placed into reserves? No. When the game ends, it is destroyed as a result of still being in reserves, but the actual act of placing it into reserves did not destroy it.

So yep, IMO, nothing changes due to it being the last turn of the game.

ok once again. The sheer mass of it is the reason it isnt destroyed but, that same sheer mass can be dissipated or teleported somewhere else rather then where it was suppose to come in at? Seems to contradict itself doesnt it?

Tomb King wrote:

don_mondo wrote:yep, the only mishap that the Monolith ignores is the destroyed result. Roll either of the others and there is no call to move the enemy models as the instead of being destroyed' clause doesn't kick in.

well if its the last turn of the game and it mishaps and rolls to go back to reserves then that would result in a destroyed result. Would it counter this as well then?

Not really. If you roll 1-2 on the mishap table, the unit is destroyed.

If the game ends while it is in reserve, it counts as destroyed, but this would be for victory point purposes.

I dont see how you all are gathering that it mishaps. It has SPECIAL RULES for when it deep strikes. Special rules > General Rules

Because of the sheer mass of the Monoltih, 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.

Just because they changed the different results for mishaps doesnt mean the monolith which never mishaped before starts to mishap.

Tomb King wrote:I dont see how you all are gathering that it mishaps. It has SPECIAL RULES for when it deep strikes. Special rules > General Rules

No, it has special rules for when it is destroyed while deep striking. And you have to roll on the mishap chart to see whether it is destroyed or if something else happens to it.

This would be the first place that I have seen someone actually argue that it mishaps.

Tomb King wrote:This would be the first place that I have seen someone actually argue that it mishaps.

How do you play it if the Monolith scatters off the board?

how would it mishap?

it lands, enemy models must move out of 1" of it, so no mishap, it never happened. like gets hot/twin linked

hitting scenery etc will still mishap it.

In 3rd (when the rule was written, and what the rule is intended to mean) if you mishapped by hitting other models you were destroyed. The lith ignored mishaps from doing this, and moved the models instead.

In 5th, destroyed isn't the only option on the table, and therefore people are arguing that it only ignores this if it rolls destroyed on the mishap table.

It's down to your interpretation.

Raw-junkies tend to like to try and nerf the monolith any way they can, and unfortunately on this one they have an argument that can be seen as being supported by the rules in the right light Letter of the rules and all that ;0)

Ascalam wrote:Raw-junkies tend to like to try and nerf the monolith any way they can, and unfortunately on this one they have an argument that can be seen as being supported by the rules in the right light Letter of the rules and all that ;0)

I will try to match your snark and and raise you a snide: That is the point and the definition of RAW.

I think the moving the models out of 1'' of the monolith would negate the mishap, as they are no longer in a position to causse one, but as the ruloe says 'destroyed' i guarantee you'll get some argument on that one.

Anything involving the Monolith tends to get the blood/vitriol mix ankle deep


Automatically Appended Next Post:
'I will try to match your snark and and raise you a snide: That is the point and the definition of RAW. '

I'll match your snide and call:

Raw doesn't always over-ride RAI

That said, let's not get into that again I've already conceded that you can argue by raw that it only affects 'destroyed'. Not saying you're right, but it can be argued

Both the INAT and the NOVA FAQ share the same ruling on the Monolith, and that is that it's allowed. Without it being a mishap.

But as they're not 'official' it makes no nevermind to some

Monoliths can mishap no matter how you read their rules.

If it cannot be destroyed, then wouldn't rolling on the mishap table risk landing a 1, destroying the unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it cannot be destroyed, then wouldn't rolling on the mishap table risk landing a 1, destroying the unit?

Edit: A double post on Dakka? Is that a warpstorm outside?

kirsanth wrote:Monoliths can mishap no matter how you read their rules.

Your right. Monoliths can mishap.

Ways monoliths mishap:
1. If they scatter off the table
2. If they land on impassible terrain



Landing on your models doesnt cause a mishap and that is the point of the poll. As it clearly states it pushes them aside. It isnt mishap proof just has an immunity to landing on opponents models.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:Thats cool, but I thought deep striking disallowed shooting unless youre a Land Raider? It doesnt say anything about being able to fire the turn it comes in......

Might want to reread your deep strike rules on that one.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tomb King wrote:I dont see how you all are gathering that it mishaps. It has SPECIAL RULES for when it deep strikes. Special rules > General Rules

Because of the sheer mass of the Monoltih, 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.

Just because they changed the different results for mishaps doesnt mean the monolith which never mishaped before starts to mishap.

Why if the rules changed would it not mishap??? It clearly states it cannot be destroyed, however, it doesn't say anything about that it cannot mishap. You just cant be destroyed when you mishap. So if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives, thats when it mishaps. But then it doesn't mishap because you push the enemies within 1" far enough away so it doesn't mishap right?? But it doesn't tell you to move the enemies you land on top of, nor does it cover them at all in its special rules. Thats where everyone argues the point, but honestly, Necrons need all the help you can get, so from a RAW, I say it mishaps, which big deal, I place it where I want or it goes back in reserves. Sucks for the lith sometimes, but meh, its not like its that big of a threat to my army. Others, it can be, but I can kill a monolith WAY too easy to worry about it DSing into my lines.

So drop it in, I'll move, and then next turn, I will destroy it or make it worthless for the rest of the game, one or the other. Basically, DSing it into my lines just gives me an extra piece of LOS blocking terrain, so thanks!!

don_mondo wrote:

Tomb King wrote:I dont see how you all are gathering that it mishaps. It has SPECIAL RULES for when it deep strikes. Special rules > General Rules

No, it has special rules for when it is destroyed while deep striking. And you have to roll on the mishap chart to see whether it is destroyed or if something else happens to it.

But when the rules for the Monolith were written, mishap=destroyed. The codex writers could not have predicted two editions of BGBs later when a mishap table was put into place. I think anyone could draw a logical RAI conclusion that the Monolith doesn't mishap at all if it scatters within an inch of or onto a model. Those models are instead pushed aside to make room for the Monolith.

RAW it rolls on the table and only ignores the 1 - 2 result. There is no rules argument any other way on this.

Its called "editions change core rules", and you jus thave to deal with it. For example PM were costed when FNP at range didnt care about AP, just Strength, so should they get to ignore those parts of the FNP rule?

Ascalam wrote:Raw-junkies tend to like to try and nerf the monolith any way they can, and unfortunately on this one they have an argument that can be seen as being supported by the rules in the right light Letter of the rules and all that ;0)

Actually, I usually point out RAW at my opponent, and then let them do the RAI thing, if it makes sense. The Monolith working on all mishap results is one of the things that make sense. If he has been unsporting and/or RAW-lawyering himself, I will not let him do this, of course.

The fundamental problem is that the BGB has been changed, but the Monolith's rules have not.

By a strict RAW reading, the monolith is only protected from a destroyed result on the mishap table. And, even then, only if the mishap is caused by enemy models. It has no protection from being misplaced or delayed, or from being destroyed due to scattering off the board, landing on impassible terrain, or landing on friendly models.

There's no room to argue on the RAW interpretation. The wording on the Monolith is very clear in what it does.

For the RAI interpretation, I'd point out that 5th edition came out 3 years ago. GW has had plenty of time to update the errata to "fix" how the Monolith works. They haven't bothered. This means they either don't care at all, or that they actually want the Monolith to work differently in 5th than it did in 3rd. Either way (apathy or intent), GW has made it clear that their intention for the rule is to make it the same as the RAW.

I disagree Grakmar.
When the Necron codex came out, I grant you there was no mishap table. That meant that any unit in any army that scattered off the table, into impassable terrain, or on top of enemy units was destroyed. Period. End of rule.
But the Monolith, and every other unit that arrived via deep strike useing the deep strike rules in the main rulebook. Why? Because there is nothing in the Necron codex that says how to deep strike.
Now if the Monolith scattered off the table or into impassable terrain, it was destroyed, like any other unit.
But what the monolith special rule does say is that if the monolith scatters onto enemy models, it is not destroyed, instead you move the enemy models out of the way.

Now we come to 5th edition. The rules for deep striking have changed to include a new rule, deep strike mishaps.
Now if any unit scatters off the table, into impassable terrain, onto friendly or enemy units it suffers a mishap and has to roll on the mishap table.
It now has a 1 in 3 chance of getting destroyed instead of it being automatic.

The Monolith does even better because if it scatters onto enemy models, and rolls a destroyed result on the mishap table, it's ponderous rule kicks in and instead of being destroyed (like any other unit in the game) the enemy unit is moved out of the way.
Specific cause and specific event.

If you choose to say the monolith never suffers mishaps, fine by me. That means that if my land speeder scatters off the board, it rolls on the mishap table.
But if your monolith scatters off the board, it is destroyed.

That would nerf the monolith.
But instead of people saying that the mishap table has now helped every unit in the game, and has given the monolith an even further advantage (albeit a minor one), people want to re-write the main rule to say something it doesn't and then couch it under the "well the codex it so old the rules don't apply to it" argument.

Just doesn't make any sense to me.

time wizard wrote:I disagree Grakmar.

Ummm... I think you either didn't understand my post, or I'm not understanding your post.

I think we're both in agreement.

Use the following flowchart to deep strike a monolith:

1) Place the Monolith on the board. Scatter as normal. Go to 2

2) Did the Monolith land off the board, on impassible terrain (including models both friendly and enemy), or within 1" of an enemy model? If yes, go to 3. If no, Stop.

3) Roll a d6. What is the result? If 1 or 2, go to 4. If 3 or 4, your opponent may place the Monolith anywhere on the board it can legally be, then Stop. If 5 or 6, return the Monolith to reserves, then Stop.

4) Is the Monolith fully on the board and not on impassible terrain, including friendly models but excluding enemy models? If yes, go to 5. If no, the Monolith is destroyed, then Stop.

5) Move the enemy models out of the way, and place the Monolith on the table, then Stop.


We're both in agreement, right?

In 3rd edition, if you scattered into an eneny unit, you were destroyed. Hence, for the purposes of the Necron codex, destroy=mishap.

For fifth edition, the rulewriters wanted to be more forgiving for deepstrike scatterers, so they gave two other options for mishaps, reserves and opponent placement.

Take the fluff into consideration. The monolith is so massive that enemy models move out of the way. So how would the monolith be thrown back into reserves or across the battlefield? It wouldn't: it deepstrikes, arrives in the air over the enemy, and slowly sinks to the ground, or just above it. Enemy models move the heck out of the way.

Take the people who wrote the NOVA and INAT FAQ's into consideration. These are experienced and knowledgeable people. They agree.

Take the poll into account. 2/3 agree that the Monolith moves the enemy models. If they move, how is a mishap of any sort caused?

3rd edition mishap =destroyed. You arrive, then you mishap, then you are destroyed. When a monolith arrives, then enemy models move. Therefore nothing is there to cause a mishap result of 3-6.

It's like if an old english man asks me for a f a g. Sure, I know what that term means now. I could get offended. But if I'm reasonable, and I think about where the man is from and his age, I know he's only asking for a cigarette. Necrons are old guys. Don't consider current terminology when they go to do something. You have to realize where they come from, and realize their terminology may differ from yours.

My suggestion: put the necrons up until august. Because people simply aren't reasonable...they are stubborn and will try to seize on any advantage...hence the RAW vs. the RAI. Lawyers! "I don't care about those FAQ's...they're not official. I don't care if the majority agree on RAI...that's not official. I don't care if the Necron codex is dated. I found an advantage in the fine print and I'm holding on to it, even if that does make me look like an a#$." That's why so many people are turned off by tournaments and playing...because some of you take a fun game and try to make it into something it's not.

Here's how a reasonable person conversation would take place:
1. Your Necrons landed on my troops. Isn't that a mishap?
2. My codex states that your models move, because I'm not destroyed when landing on your units.
1. Isn't destroyed just a 1-2 on the mishap table.
2. Well, in 3rd edition when my codex was written, destroyed = mishap.
1. Oh ok that makes sense. Man they should update third edition already. Let me move my models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, if you have to rely on rules lawyership to beat a 3rd edition codex, maybe you should spend more time strategizing and less time being so anal.

Grakmar wrote: We're both in agreement, right?

Sorry Grakmar, I misread!
Yes, we are in agreement, and so is my regular Necron player!

Shenra wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, if you have to rely on rules lawyership to beat a 3rd edition codex, maybe you should spend more time strategizing and less time being so anal.

Ok, so you should easily be able to defeat a 3rd edition codex with a 5th edition one?? I hardly believe that. As a matter of fact, I can factually disprove it.

Dark Eldar were first introduced in thrid edition, before that necron codex came out, yet even before our codex update, we were still a deadly, hard to beat army. You couldn't beat us very easily in third edition, or 4th, or even in 5th. So just because a codex is from a previous edition doesn't mean its not a decenet codex still.

Also, even though as I stated earlier, I wouldn't argue this with a Necron player, you still have to use the actual rules and Errata/FAQs from GW to determine things, nothing else. And you don't give leeway to something whose rules worked differently when its codex was first printed, otherwise there were quite a few things that should have been changed in the last DE codex. Just citing examples for ya!

Galador wrote:

Shenra wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, if you have to rely on rules lawyership to beat a 3rd edition codex, maybe you should spend more time strategizing and less time being so anal.

Ok, so you should easily be able to defeat a 3rd edition codex with a 5th edition one?? I hardly believe that. As a matter of fact, I can factually disprove it.

Dark Eldar were first introduced in thrid edition, before that necron codex came out, yet even before our codex update, we were still a deadly, hard to beat army. You couldn't beat us very easily in third edition, or 4th, or even in 5th. So just because a codex is from a previous edition doesn't mean its not a decenet codex still.

Also, even though as I stated earlier, I wouldn't argue this with a Necron player, you still have to use the actual rules and Errata/FAQs from GW to determine things, nothing else. And you don't give leeway to something whose rules worked differently when its codex was first printed, otherwise there were quite a few things that should have been changed in the last DE codex. Just citing examples for ya!

Well the problem with so many rules with GW is that issues are not always black and white. Erratas and FAQ's from GW don't always fix every problem. So what do you turn to? Other Errata and FAQ's? The majority decision? Heck, I've called GW and they've confirmed what I've said...but people on here won't even accept rule clarifications from the mouths of GW employees. The fact that you and so many others will ONLY be satisfied by an official GW FAQ is ridiculous...because every grey area will NEVER be solved by Errata. As long as GW releases codexes and rulebooks the way they do, players will have to determine how to solve these grey areas.

Personally I'd rather go by FAQ's from other sources, the majority opinion by players, and RAI. Because as we've seen, RAW can be seriously wrong, contradictory, and bad for players. If you disagree with me, and tell me that I must ALWAYS follow RAW, ok. Then you just made my monolith immensely better. Because every time you get a weapon destroyed result on a monolith, I get one extra shot. Because RAW, every weapon destroyed result reduces my shots by a NEGATIVE one. You still want to claim RAW can't be wrong...that common sense and the way most people agree to play it has no place in the 40k universe? Because here's a message for all you rule lawyers: you can't have it both ways. Go with RAW and nothing else, or display a little bit of common sense. But if you refer to RAW only when it benefits you, then you are a hypocirte and any game you play with me will suck, because I won't let you get away with it.

As far as DE, I've yet to lose to them. But that's beside the point. I feel like most rule lawyering comes from those trying to get an advantage, which is why I said what I did about strategizing. I don't even deepstrike my monoliths just so innane arguments like this one don't occur, and I win a fair share with Necrons. Basically this is all GW's fault, because no codex should be 2 editions behind...and as much arguing as there's been about monoliths deepstriking, you'd think they would errata it. Oh yeah, Errata are official, and FAQ's are not, by the way.

Shenra: You can't just yell at people until they agree with you.

And, talking to someone who works at GW is no more authoritative than talking to some random FLGS owner. Call and ask again and you'll get a totally different result. In fact, call and ask about a rule question that is 100% clear and you'll get a wrong answer a good portion of the time. Unless you spoke directly to Andy Chambers, don't bother mentioning it.

The fact of the matter is that because of the wording on the Monolith, it works much differently now than it did in 3rd edition. That's what happens when new editions come out, some rules behave worse than they previously did, some rules behave better than they previously did, and some rules don't make any sense at all and do nothing.

I'll agree that Necrons are an underpowered army. And, if you played against me, I'd be up for making some house rules to benefit them. But, discussing house rules and balance issues have no place on YMDC. Here, we discuss the actual rules, not how we wish they behaved.

I'm not yelling Grak; I'm stressing certain words.

As to how the monolith works in in 5th edition, it's not so obviously black and white, or we wouldn't be having this debate with everyone else. INAT and NOVA clearly disagree with you. So do I and 65 percent of people who took the poll. So does the clueless guy at GW. I agree with Tombking...enemy models move, so nothing is there to cause a mishap.

And having some guys on Dakka tell you how your monolith works is even LESS authoritative than talking to someone at GW.

So would you say every time you get a weapon destroyed on a monolith, it gets an extra attack? Because that's RAW...and we are here to discuss the actual rules, not common sense and how we all understand them to behave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:One of the biggest things you have to take into consideration also, is that everyone can perceive something different from someone else.

They can either intentionally or unintentionally have a different perception than what other people see. Does this mean they are wrong? No, it means they think along a different track, and bring a new angle to something. Does this mean they are right? No, for the same reason as they are not wrong.

I found this in another thread...and I couldn't agree more. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. I know I have as much chance changing your mind as you have in changing mine.

Grakmar wrote:Shenra: You can't just yell at people until they agree with you.

And, talking to someone who works at GW is no more authoritative than talking to some random FLGS owner. Call and ask again and you'll get a totally different result. In fact, call and ask about a rule question that is 100% clear and you'll get a wrong answer a good portion of the time. Unless you spoke directly to Andy Chambers, don't bother mentioning it.

The fact of the matter is that because of the wording on the Monolith, it works much differently now than it did in 3rd edition. That's what happens when new editions come out, some rules behave worse than they previously did, some rules behave better than they previously did, and some rules don't make any sense at all and do nothing.

I'll agree that Necrons are an underpowered army. And, if you played against me, I'd be up for making some house rules to benefit them. But, discussing house rules and balance issues have no place on YMDC. Here, we discuss the actual rules, not how we wish they behaved.

So stacked against you is a 2/3's vote. 2 faq's and 2 other forums that all came to the conclusion that the models move and there is no mishap. Usually it is best if something is questionable to go with the consensus rather then play your own house rules.

Judging by the poll's and all of the evidence provided I will have to say that I will never roll a mishap for my monolith if it hits enemy models. Unless it is faq'ed to say otherwise or the new book eliminates it. As for now the consensus rules that monoliths do not mishap when landing on enemy models and to argue it any other way earns a nice old TFG tag.

There is a significant difference between what the rules state and how people play them.

Especially in this case.

Ascalam wrote:I think the moving the models out of 1'' of the monolith would negate the mishap, as they are no longer in a position to causse one, but as the ruloe says 'destroyed' i guarantee you'll get some argument on that one.

Anything involving the Monolith tends to get the blood/vitriol mix ankle deep


Automatically Appended Next Post:
'I will try to match your snark and and raise you a snide: That is the point and the definition of RAW. '

I'll match your snide and call:

Raw doesn't always over-ride RAI

That said, let's not get into that again I've already conceded that you can argue by raw that it only affects 'destroyed'. Not saying you're right, but it can be argued

Wait wait wait...so, you're saying that the situation that causes the rule to come into play also means that the rule in play negates the situation that brought it up? You can't go and say that "this happened so this is the result but because this is the result that original thing didn't happen."

No, just trying to invert a few people's brains


How about this for a flowchart though

Monolith drops
Are there troops underneath? -Yes
Move troops due to rule.

Is there still anything that could cause a mishap underneath?

No

Land


Might be one way to houserule it to allow for mishaps and still use the rule. I'm probably wording this poorly right now, as i'm way low on caffiene. I'll revisit it later after java

Well had I looked at Dakkadakka's Faq before running this pole then I wouldnt have to do all of this.



Its covered and the ruling body here seems to support it.

RAW - you dont find out if the monolith would be destroyed UNTIL you have determined there is a mishap and the result is 1 - 2

The poll and the not GW FAQs are irrelevant to the actual rules.

Tomb King wrote:Well had I looked at Dakkadakka's Faq before running this pole then I wouldnt have to do all of this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv4.3.1.pdf

Its covered and the ruling body here seems to support it.

1) Polls are a terrible way to determine what is the correct rule. It gives you a good indication of how people typically play it, but that's it. People often times play a rule incorrectly. Additionally, your poll isn't worded the best, and the only portion of the rule you quote is the one that seems to support your argument. You've chopped off the rest of the rule that makes it clear you're wrong.

2) INAT isn't an authoritative reference. It's totally unofficial and isn't a good place to resolve rules issues. It's not one of the sources meant to be used on this board (see: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page).

Grakmar wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Well had I looked at Dakkadakka's Faq before running this pole then I wouldnt have to do all of this.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv4.3.1.pdf

Its covered and the ruling body here seems to support it.

1) Polls are a terrible way to determine what is the correct rule. It gives you a good indication of how people typically play it, but that's it. People often times play a rule incorrectly. Additionally, your poll isn't worded the best, and the only portion of the rule you quote is the one that seems to support your argument. You've chopped off the rest of the rule that makes it clear you're wrong.

2) INAT isn't an authoritative reference. It's totally unofficial and isn't a good place to resolve rules issues. It's not one of the sources meant to be used on this board (see: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page).

lol your impossible. Why your at go ahead and roll mishaps for drop pods and spore pods. Do you always have this big of an issue admitting your wrong? If you want you can post the full rule and word it however you want and see how it works then. You have nothing backing your side of the argument beyond your own interpretation. You are soundly defeated my sheer volume of support for it not mishaping.

Tomb King wrote:Do you always have this big of an issue admitting your wrong?

He isn't wrong.

Tomb King wrote: Why your at go ahead and roll mishaps for drop pods and spore pods.

Both the drop pod and the mycetic spore have specific wording in their rules sayin if they scatter on top of other models you reduce the scatter distance.
The monolith rule does not say that.
The monolith rule says if it lands on top of enemy models, it is not destroyed, the models are moved.
This happens after it deep strikes, and follows the rules for deep striking including mishaps.
Unless you want to say it doesn't follow the rules for deep striking mishaps.
And if that is the case, if your monolith scatters off the board it doesn't sufer a mishap, it doesn't roll on the table, it is just destroyed.
Can't have your mishap and ignore it too.

time wizard wrote:

Tomb King wrote: Why your at go ahead and roll mishaps for drop pods and spore pods.

Both the drop pod and the mycetic spore have specific wording in their rules sayin if they scatter on top of other models you reduce the scatter distance.

To add to this, if I place my pod directly on your troops and roll a 'hit', it will mishap normally.

TK - the problem is the poster ISNT wrong. The rules back them up, something which you have failed to argue against (you try to claim the mishap - destroyed protects them automatically from any other mishap, which is illogical to the extreme) and your poll is badly worded to create bias.

Whether you meant to do that or not, your poll is heavily biased, and cannot be relied upon to produce clear results.

guys when the codex was written destruction was the only mishap. it wasn't a 1-2 result on the mishap table because the mishap table didn't exist. so you could read it as the monolith doesn't mishap, it moves enemy models. of course, you won't do that until the necron code.x comes out and states that for you. then i will revive this post with a huge "i told you so"...because again, RAI is better than RAW because this is a game we are meant to enjoy...and not a legally binding contract where we argue about wording and such

Does the rule for the monolith say it doesnt mishap? No?

Then it mishaps.

Thats the only way to read the actual rules.

Shenra wrote:guys when the codex was written destruction was the only mishap.

And now it isn't and yet the codex has not be errata'd.

Shenra wrote: then i will revive this post with a huge "i told you so"

So when a new book with new rules that have no bearing on this discussion comes out, you think it will change the way the old rules actually are written and justify. . .what exactly?

Really, that is part of the reason why *I think* the rules are written in this way. The rules isn't a rigid system like Magic: The Gathering. They are written in such a way to let people come up with their own rules. This allows the game to be classified as a hobby game. If this was not the mind set from GW, these issues would not be coming up. So I say, sense it is a hobby game, I will go with the RAI to allow the game to continue with the best overall reaction.

Zyllos wrote:So I say, sinse it is a hobby game, I will go with what I assume to be the RAI to allow the game to continue with the best overall reaction.

Basically, that is what most think.

kirsanth wrote:There is a significant difference between what the rules state and how people play them.

Especially in this case.

Shenra wrote:And having some guys on Dakka tell you how your monolith works is even LESS authoritative than talking to someone at GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:One of the biggest things you have to take into consideration also, is that everyone can perceive something different from someone else.

They can either intentionally or unintentionally have a different perception than what other people see. Does this mean they are wrong? No, it means they think along a different track, and bring a new angle to something. Does this mean they are right? No, for the same reason as they are not wrong.

I found this in another thread...and I couldn't agree more. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. I know I have as much chance changing your mind as you have in changing mine.

Lets start with the first sentence I quoted from you. I don't know about the rest, but I know I'm not trying to tell you how to run your Monolith. I am just telling you what I percieve the rules to be from both sides.

Thank you for quoting that from another thread, it is how I feel every debate on YMDC should be looked at, and I feel honored you thought it was important enough to use it. Thanks for inflating my head just a bit more! j/k!

Bottom line, you don't have to change my mind, because I wouldn't do what I have debated to you. I know the difference between RAW and RAI, and I always refer to pg 2 of the BRB for the most important rule whenever my opponent and myself disagree. In other words, in a fun, friendly game, the rules aren't that important!!


Also, just one last thing, if you have never lost to Dark Eldar, you really need to find a new Dark Eldar opponent, cause they are just not doing something right. You might wanna have them get on Dakka and read Dash, Ketara, and Thor665's stuff, cause if you just can't lose to them, then thety must build horrid lists or else you are simply the most unbelievably outstanding Tactical Gen..... CREEEEEEEED!! Yeah but seriously, had to do that, but if you can't lose to them, something is wrong inthe way they play, because I have 2 Necron players here in the local meta, and while I haven't lost to them either, I haven't always won, they have at least beaten me to a draw on a few occasions, but for the most part, I push them to Phase Out on at least 80% of our games.

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Do you always have this big of an issue admitting your wrong?

He isn't wrong.

time wizard wrote:

Tomb King wrote: Why your at go ahead and roll mishaps for drop pods and spore pods.

Both the drop pod and the mycetic spore have specific wording in their rules sayin if they scatter on top of other models you reduce the scatter distance.
The monolith rule does not say that.
The monolith rule says if it lands on top of enemy models, it is not destroyed, the models are moved.
This happens after it deep strikes, and follows the rules for deep striking including mishaps.
Unless you want to say it doesn't follow the rules for deep striking mishaps.
And if that is the case, if your monolith scatters off the board it doesn't sufer a mishap, it doesn't roll on the table, it is just destroyed.
Can't have your mishap and ignore it too.

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Do you always have this big of an issue admitting your wrong?

He isn't wrong.

Rather then bother with comment I will just redirect with the same counter:

You have nothing backing your side of the argument beyond your own interpretation. You are soundly defeated my sheer volume of support for it not mishaping.

Regardless how many times you quote it, it does not change the words in the codex.

There is no mention of 'mishap' in the Necron codex, I struggle to understand how you think it IS.

Mishap ≠ Destroyed

Mishaps can lead to destruction, but they are not the same thing.

Tomb King wrote:Rather then bother with comment I will just redirect with the same counter:

You have nothing backing your side of the argument beyond your own interpretation. You are soundly defeated my sheer volume of support for it not mishaping.

Your support doesn't make you right, nor does it make the people who are supporting you right. It just means there are more people who are thinking along your lines than along time wizards.

And you do realize that you are actually defeating yourself form your original query of whether you can deepstrike directly on top of the enemies models, correct??? You might want to reread your deepstrike rules, as it gives you no permission to break the 1" rule when you pick the spot that you are trying to deep strike to. Which means that you cannot pick a spot on the field to be deep struck to that is already occupied by another model. So your first attempt at DS still has to be not on top of enemy models.

And you can't tell me that when you set it down in the original spot that you want, I have to move the models, because I don't. The original spot that you pick is where you want to come in, not necessarily where you will come in.

DS also states that you must place the unit on the table where you want it to come in, so you can't place it there if there are models in the way. And you can't hold it in the air above the spot, as the rules state you must place it on the table. You can't set it on the models as the rules state you must place it on the table. You can't place it on the table because my models are in that area, and seeing as you haven't rolled for scatter yet, you haven't entered play yet, so you can't use your SHEER MASS to move my models yet.

So, you can deep strike over top of me if you want, if you can follow the Deep Strike rules, which as I just showed, you can't. And honestly, if you insisted on that you could after I told you no, and you tried to again place your monolith ontop of the models that I have taken hours to paint and convert and make to my liking, I would remind you once not to do it, after that, I would physically prevent you from setting that big, heavy model ontop of my models that you couldn't move yet, and if you still tried, and actually set it on my models, I would then play Bowling for Necrons with your Monolith.

Wanna see if I can get a strike???

Galador wrote:And you do realize that you are actually defeating yourself form your original query of whether you can deepstrike directly on top of the enemies models, correct??? You might want to reread your deepstrike rules, as it gives you no permission to break the 1" rule when you pick the spot that you are trying to deep strike to. Which means that you cannot pick a spot on the field to be deep struck to that is already occupied by another model. So your first attempt at DS still has to be not on top of enemy models.

This is not true, Deepstrike allows you to place the DS model anywhere on the table.

Unless you are going to say terrain (including open terrain) is not included on that, which is demonstrably false.

kirsanth wrote:

Galador wrote:And you do realize that you are actually defeating yourself form your original query of whether you can deepstrike directly on top of the enemies models, correct??? You might want to reread your deepstrike rules, as it gives you no permission to break the 1" rule when you pick the spot that you are trying to deep strike to. Which means that you cannot pick a spot on the field to be deep struck to that is already occupied by another model. So your first attempt at DS still has to be not on top of enemy models.

This is not true, Deepstrike allows you to place the DS model anywhere on the table.

Unless you are going to say terrain (including open terrain) is not included on that, which is demonstrably false.

show me where placing the Monolith on my models is on the table.

Models count as impassible terrain.

Page 14 main rulebook.

Editing to add:
Also check FAQ on Mawlocks etc.

kirsanth wrote:Models count as impassible terrain.

Page 14 main rulebook.

Ok, so then its an auto-mishap.

And its page 13, actually. Was looking for it and was like, where is it??? But thanks for the pointer!

Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

((Monoliths can technically mishap, but potentially ignore it. I have yet to see anyone play by the rules regarding that, however.))

kirsanth wrote:Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

Monlith has that if it lands within one inch of enemy models, not on top of them. It still can't land on Impassable terrain, and it actually can't be placed there to start with unless you can physically place the model, due to the skimmers being able to end on impassable terrain. But, I really don't think your going to balance a Monolith on top of a DE Warrior, honestly....

On top is not within an inch?!?

Also, the specific models I mentioned move models out of the way.

No need to balance, even though that is allowed with skimmers

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Technically, it depends on the height of the model. According to pg 3, within is measured from base to base to base, or the height of the model to the base of the model on the level above it. Since it will be placed on the same level as the model, the height doesn't factor in. So if my model is taller than 1", then yes, its not within 1".

(Semantics I know, but you did ask.... And just so this doesn't devolve into stupidity over these humorous postings, this is just humor all. Don't take my RAWing right now as trying to fight your Monolith rules, I am just giving you alternatives to think about. I am DE, I have Haywires. I LOVE it when you DS your Monolith close to me, so I don't have to go to it!! )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Also, the specific models I mentioned move models out of the way.

No need to balance, even though that is allowed with skimmers

They move them when they arrive. He hasn't arrived until he rolls the scatter, according to the rules. But you still have to use placement rules to put it on the table at all, so if he can't seit it on the impassable terrain of a model and have it stay there, then it can't be set there.

And trust me, with the amount of work I have put in on my models, there is no way it would be able to stay there..... the "Hand of God" rule would come into effect if someone tried this.

And there is need to balance, as per the skimmers and impassable terrain rules, it must be able to be place there, so that defeats wobbly model syndrome. At least, IMHO it does. If it states that it has to be able to be placed there, then you can't wobbly model it.

LOL

Cheers, I am a fan of moot discussions.

Long story short, you are always allowed to attempt to DS on top of models--enemy or not, it is just that is USUALLY a really, really, bad idea.

Galador wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

Monlith has that if it lands within one inch of enemy models, not on top of them. It still can't land on Impassable terrain, and it actually can't be placed there to start with unless you can physically place the model, due to the skimmers being able to end on impassable terrain. But, I really don't think your going to balance a Monolith on top of a DE Warrior, honestly....

If you want to get technical the damn thing teleports into the battle. It doesnt teleport onto the field and then figure out where it is going to go from there. If you are RAW that is. That means I could set it in the middle of your IG platoon if i wanted too lol. However, ignore this as this comment wasnt needed.


Your argument of me defeating myself was eliminated before it started. I didnt say I was gonna place it on top of them in my question did i? It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

Tomb King wrote: It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

That is still not true.

There are not rules in the necron codex that prevent mishap.

In fact Deepstrike mishaps are never EVER mentioned in the Necron codex.

Galador wrote:

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Technically, it depends on the height of the model. According to pg 3, within is measured from base to base to base, or the height of the model to the base of the model on the level above it. Since it will be placed on the same level as the model, the height doesn't factor in. So if my model is taller than 1", then yes, its not within 1".

(Semantics I know, but you did ask.... And just so this doesn't devolve into stupidity over these humorous postings, this is just humor all. Don't take my RAWing right now as trying to fight your Monolith rules, I am just giving you alternatives to think about. I am DE, I have Haywires. I LOVE it when you DS your Monolith close to me, so I don't have to go to it!! )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Also, the specific models I mentioned move models out of the way.

No need to balance, even though that is allowed with skimmers

They move them when they arrive. He hasn't arrived until he rolls the scatter, according to the rules. But you still have to use placement rules to put it on the table at all, so if he can't seit it on the impassable terrain of a model and have it stay there, then it can't be set there.

And trust me, with the amount of work I have put in on my models, there is no way it would be able to stay there..... the "Hand of God" rule would come into effect if someone tried this.

And there is need to balance, as per the skimmers and impassable terrain rules, it must be able to be place there, so that defeats wobbly model syndrome. At least, IMHO it does. If it states that it has to be able to be placed there, then you can't wobbly model it.

Haywire blasters are actually brokenly good and I run them in nearly every one of my DE list. Scourges rock! Back on topic you all concede yet?

Tomb King wrote:

Galador wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

Monlith has that if it lands within one inch of enemy models, not on top of them. It still can't land on Impassable terrain, and it actually can't be placed there to start with unless you can physically place the model, due to the skimmers being able to end on impassable terrain. But, I really don't think your going to balance a Monolith on top of a DE Warrior, honestly....

If you want to get technical the damn thing teleports into the battle. It doesnt teleport onto the field and then figure out where it is going to go from there. If you are RAW that is. That means I could set it in the middle of your IG platoon if i wanted too lol. However, ignore this as this comment wasnt needed.


Your argument of me defeating myself was eliminated before it started. I didnt say I was gonna place it on top of them in my question did i? It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

So now the Monolith doesn't have to follow ANY of the rules for Deep Striking?? even the ones that tell you how??? If you RAW, as you said. It must be physically placed on the table, THEN you roll the scatter dice. So, fluff aside about it teleporting, It has to be placed where you want it to go first.

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote: It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

That is still not true.

There are not rules in the necron codex that prevent mishap.

In fact Deepstrike mishaps are never EVER mentioned in the Necron codex.

Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

Tomb King wrote:
Haywire blasters are actually brokenly good and I run them in nearly every one of my DE list. Scourges rock! Back on topic you all concede yet?

Haywire blasters are unneccesary and too expensive for a Monolith. 10 wyches with Haywire grenades are MNCUH better for a Monolith, and I have yet to meed the Necron player that can stop me from getting to his Monoliths with my Haywires when I want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

I am not stubborn because of RAW, I am stubborn because I learned it from my father! I am also not all about RAW, I just like to debate, cause I did it for 4 years in high school and have found it is an excellent way to meet intelligent people and learn other people perspectives and why they think that way.

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

It seems that since the rules do not back you you hope insults may help?

Perhaps you should actually read the rest of this thread. . .sirrah.

Tomb King wrote: It states that a monolith doesnt get destroyed if it deepstrikes within 1" of the enemy. Instead it moves them as far as needed out of the way.

Really cheesy tactic question:

Can I use this to deepstrike my monolith in the middle of a castled imperial guardsman player and make him scoot all of his tanks out of the way?

I edited the pull to cover the actual question at hand.

Original Post is above quote.

Tomb King wrote:
Your argument of me defeating myself was eliminated before it started. I didnt say I was gonna place it on top of them in my question did i? It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

No, you didn't say that in your question up top, but I also wasn't referring to your poll question, I was referring to your " Dropping it into the middle of someone who is castled up to make them move their models. That was your original post, not your poll. In fact, if I remember correctly, you added the poll later, after people gave you both sides of the debate.

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

It seems that since the rules do not back you you hope insults may help?

Perhaps you should actually read the rest of this thread. . .sirrah.

I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

Kirsanth, you need to go back up to where I responded on the can't place on top and wher eyou said that on top is not within 1"? Cause I replied a bit more to you for us to have a further debate on it. I will be awaiting what you think, you dirty RAWer you!! j/k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tomb King wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

It seems that since the rules do not back you you hope insults may help?

Perhaps you should actually read the rest of this thread. . .sirrah.

I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

We debate because it is fun, and as I stated earlier in the thread, it helps you to learn to think from the other person's perspective, to see the rule from different angles, as different people do. Hence why we are still debating with you, to show you that just because your not going to agree, doesn't mean you can't understand, ya know?? While close, those two are worlds apart in difference!

Tomb King wrote:I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

I have rules supporting me, you have insults and ignorance of them.

My interpreted insult was you saying that "Myself and most intelligent people are RAI" which strongly implies that folks disagreeing with you are not intelligent.

If you meant to imply otherwise, that statement was simply provocative non-sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:Kirsanth, you need to go back up to where I responded on the can't place on top and wher eyou said that on top is not within 1"? Cause I replied a bit more to you for us to have a further debate on it. I will be awaiting what you think, you dirty RAWer you!! j/k

heh

I read it, but it is not exactly correct.

Your model is not disallowed from being placed anywhere on the table when it is given the allowance to be placed anywhere on the table

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

I have rules supporting me, you have insults and ignorance of them.

My interpreted insult was you saying that "Myself and most intelligent people are RAI" which strongly implies that folks disagreeing with you are not intelligent.

If you meant to imply otherwise, that statement was simply provocative non-sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:Kirsanth, you need to go back up to where I responded on the can't place on top and wher eyou said that on top is not within 1"? Cause I replied a bit more to you for us to have a further debate on it. I will be awaiting what you think, you dirty RAWer you!! j/k

heh

I read it, but it is not exactly correct.

Your model is not disallowed from being placed anywhere on the table when it is given the allowance to be placed anywhere on the table

its still gotta be put on the table, and my model is not the table. Now, I will grant you that normal terrain on the board is the table because it doesn't move and change as the game goes on. For all intents and purposes, IMHO, the table is all scenery and the solid surface that you have placed your models on. MY models are NOT the table, so he cannot start the DS procedure!!

And even if you want to allow this, then if we wanna go with that, you better land that 'Lith on some Grots, otherwise you are more than an inch from my base when you come in, which causes a mishap!

Galador wrote:its still gotta be put on the table, and my model is not the table.

So, you cannot place it on terrain?

Which includes open terrain.

Also, the restriction is against moving within an inch.

Initially, the model is placed.

kirsanth wrote:

Galador wrote:its still gotta be put on the table, and my model is not the table.

So, you cannot place it on terrain?

Which includes open terrain.

Now now, no taking only PART of what I said......

But even if you decide to let them place it on the models, being impassible terrain, it still has to be able to stay there. Show me how your going to balance a 'Lith on top of a Dark Eldar Warrior....

Also, you still haven't gotten to the part about if he lands on target and my model is taller than 1", what happens then??

Check my edit.

And if he doesn't scatter?

"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
A: Yes."

So I'm guessing Monoliths can't Deep-strike on top of other models because then they aren't trying to use their 'Terror from the Deep' rule (which they don't have)...

TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Secondly, please show where "Monoliths do not mishap" is included in the Necron codex. Found it? If you cannot, then you MUST agree that Monoliths must still Mishap and still roll to see what happens. If you do not agree you are NOT following the rules as written and the rules as intended (see above) and are defeated

If you agree it mishaps, then you must also agree it can only ignore the 1-2 result.

Please, lay out an actual rules argument from what is written. So far you have failed to do so, in breach of the tenets of this forum. Your poll is also HEAVILY BIASED and cannot be used to support your side, unless you are being intellectually dishonest of course. I suggest you redo the poll using the way Yakface words them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Indeed it is, please don't flame other users like this in future.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Secondly, please show where "Monoliths do not mishap" is included in the Necron codex. Found it? If you cannot, then you MUST agree that Monoliths must still Mishap and still roll to see what happens. If you do not agree you are NOT following the rules as written and the rules as intended (see above) and are defeated

If you agree it mishaps, then you must also agree it can only ignore the 1-2 result.

Please, lay out an actual rules argument from what is written. So far you have failed to do so, in breach of the tenets of this forum. Your poll is also HEAVILY BIASED and cannot be used to support your side, unless you are being intellectually dishonest of course. I suggest you redo the poll using the way Yakface words them.

reds8n wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Indeed it is, please don't flame other users like this in future.

Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

Didnt call anyone unintelligent. I said myself and most intelligent people are RAI. Most can be 51% for all that matters. Please dont put words in my mouth. Didnt even bother reading your alls quick conclusions of my statement. Either way I retract my statement as it lead to a misunderstanding of its intent.

Back on topic please!

If you would like you can create a new poll and put the exact words in for both. Is it biased? Why yes it is, because I/myself and a very strong majority believe it that way and play it that way!

Except your only "proof" of this is through your poll which was biased to give that result. In other words - your statistically invalid method has produced a result, however as it was invalid to begin with you can not claim any result from it. None what so ever.

I have no need to put up a poll as I know what the rules actually say, and you have no counter to that rules argument. Absolutely none. Apparently 2 edition changes should not affect how the monolith plays at all - oh, except it has done. For another example see monoliths deepstriking, they cannot fire their Particle whip in 5th edition when they could in 4th

In addition: Your RAI argument has flaws, as was shown by myself and others. GW have had 3 years to change the FAQ to the way you "think" it should play, and yet havent done so. So a reasonable "RAI" is that they INTEND Monoliths to mishap.

Finally: you insulted people who dont believe your "RAI" is correct by calling them unintelligent. A mod agreed with me and others that you were being insulting.

I dont see the bias, this demonstrates something in life that irks me, its a Yes or No question, during a game "can i DS into that unit?"
"No"
"ok, moving on"

OR

"yes"
"ok, moving on"

ask before it happens, if they are going to argue, just agree and get on with the game.

and saying "Gw didn't FAQ it, so thats the intention" is nonsense, GW getting round to FAQ's is notoriously bad

There recently was an article in a magazine based on a survey about historical facts asked to a number of people in the UK. It resulted in 86% of the questioned people thinking the battle of helms klam was an actual historic event(it is a battle in lord of the rings, in case you don't know), while only 39% think that the vietnam war was a real war. Do still think polls prove anything?

This forum is about RAW, if you'd rather want to know to play it fair, ask that way. I do allow my necron opponents to deepstrike onto my units without rolling on the mishap table, but only because I belive this is how it should work. I know the written rule does not work that way.

Formosa - stating that GW intended Monoliths to ignore ALL mishaps is equally rediculous, as mishaps didnt exist when they wrote the rules.

Which is why RAI sucks as a debate method. It's as flawed as appealing to common sense - two peoples ideas of "RAI" can be very different to eachother.

Lol the poll is just things pointed in this thread. It is not the source of my conclusion. The 2 faq's that I looked at and the two other forums that I asked also said no mishap and so far a majority on this site say no mishap.

Bringing all of that together I can pick the select few out that seek out an advantage against a monolith based on vague words from almost a decade ago. If you need that to win that is fine. If you give me this much rift in a match I might just give you the win rather then play you and argue it out.

Tomb King wrote:Lol the poll is just things pointed in this thread. It is not the source of my conclusion. The 2 faq's that I looked at and the two other forums that I asked also said no mishap and so far a majority on this site say no mishap.

Bringing all of that together I can pick the select few out that seek out an advantage against a monolith based on vague words from almost a decade ago. If you need that to win that is fine. If you give me this much rift in a match I might just give you the win rather then play you and argue it out.

QFT

Tomb King wrote:Lol the poll is just things pointed in this thread. It is not the source of my conclusion. The 2 faq's that I looked at and the two other forums that I asked also said no mishap and so far a majority on this site say no mishap.

Bringing all of that together I can pick the select few out that seek out an advantage against a monolith based on vague words from almost a decade ago. If you need that to win that is fine. If you give me this much rift in a match I might just give you the win rather then play you and argue it out.

TK, I'm not arguing it, cause I let me Necron opponents here do it anyway, cause as I said, I love it when they bring it closer so I can kill it faster. But I still want to pose a RAW question to you, ok??? Simply because I want to see what you say on this.

Lets say you decided that you wanted to DS ont one of my objectives, which has a unit of my Warriors on it, ok??? Now then, I even go so far as to let you set your Monolith on top of my models and you can balance it, as ber the Deep Strike rules, and the skimmers stopping on impassable terrain rules. You then roll your scatter, and you land dead on target. This means that you would be coming in at the exact spot you chose, right?? Now we have to figure out if your Monolith is within 1" of my models for your ability to push my units out of the way, right? Well RAW, according to the definition on pg 3 of the BRB you must measure from the two closest points of the bases, or the hull of a vehicle. so a measurment from the top of the base of my models would give you....(hold on measuring my average warrior height real fast) 1.5" for an old Warrior, and 1.75" for my new ones. Neither of the two that I measures are specifically modeled(I have some that have their rifles pointed in the air, which adds about .5" to them), they are just run of the mil; normal models.

According to RAW, you are not within 1" of my models, hence, I don't have to move them. Which means you have DS'ed into impassable terrain, and you misshap. Do you get destroyed if you roll on the mishap table??? Technically, yes you can be, as your not within 1" of the enemy, so you can be destroyed.

Now, would I ever do this?? Hell no, because that is way to nitpicky for anyone to try and pull off. I simply enjoy a good debate about things that don't quite mesh and finding out other players reactions and thoughts. I don't debate rules during a game, I do it after. I am very quick to go for a die roll on a dsagreement, and discuss it after the game.

Hopefully you see where I am coming from, and that RAW it supports what I said. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, and eagerly await you and kirsanth's replies, plus anyone else who has an opinion on this!

Everyone can calm down now. Warnings have been given. Lets get back to Dakka Rule #1: BE POLITE gnetlemen. That includes personal attacks, questioning posters' intelligence and collateral slants that are also attacks.

Remember its a simple rule. Don't be a dick or the Mods will be a dick to you.

ChrisCP wrote:"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
A: Yes."

So I'm guessing Monoliths can't Deep-strike on top of other models because then they aren't trying to use their 'Terror from the Deep' rule (which they don't have)...

Monoliths can Deepstrike onto a model like everything else that can deepstrike, but you are correct that it cannot use TftD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:And if he doesn't scatter?

The rules cover that. Mawlocks have rules for it, as do Monoliths.

Unless the model/unit has a similar rule, it will mishap.

Pods will mishap if you are so assinine to deliberately aim for a unit as well.

kirsanth wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
A: Yes."

So I'm guessing Monoliths can't Deep-strike on top of other models because then they aren't trying to use their 'Terror from the Deep' rule (which they don't have)...

Monoliths can Deepstrike onto a model like everything else that can deepstrike, but you are correct that it cannot use TftD.

I addressed the issue of deep striking on top of enemy models on the first page. I've re-posted it below:

Grakmar wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Too true

Rear is even better, especially on vindicator walls like my usual SW opponent likes building

Although do you have to be able to place the model before rolling to scatter? Or can you just pick a point?

That's a debatable point. The rulebook tells you that the first step in deep striking is to place the model on the table. You then roll for scatter.

There's 3 ways to interpret this:

The overly literal approach: You have to be able to physically place the model onto the table. If there is anything between your model and the table, you can't deep strike there. This includes pieces of area terrain, as they aren't the actual table. If you're playing with a battle board, tough luck, the entire table is blocked.

The "I'm an a hole" approach: You have to physically place your model onto the table. If your opponent's models are in the way, you just ignore them and place your model onto the board. Yes, this means the rulebook is granting you permission to crush your opponent's minis into dust.

The reasonable approach: You have to place the model onto to table. But, your opponents minis are in the same location you want to place your model. So, you point to "wobbly model syndrome" and both you and your opponent pretend the two models are occupying the same space. You then proceed to play a fun game where everyone wins.

Grakmar wrote:I addressed the issue of deep striking on top of enemy models on the first page. I've re-posted it below:

I think I have basically agreed with it, repeatedly. But I was asked again; so, me being me, responded.



Though you did explain it better than I, this time.

kirsanth wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I addressed the issue of deep striking on top of enemy models on the first page. I've re-posted it below:

I think I have basically agreed with it, repeatedly. But I was asked again; so, me being me, responded.



Though you did explain it better than I, this time.

so respond to the res of what I wrote for RAW, wanna see what you say to it!

You are saying your models are not terrain.

I pointed out a rule saying they are.

What else did you want?

Or are you suggesting that your model is not part of your model and thus not restricting movement?

kirsanth wrote:You are saying your models are not terrain.

I pointed out a rule saying they are.

What else did you want?

Or are you suggesting that your model is not part of your model and thus not restricting movement?

roll up to what I posted last time I quoted Tomb King, and read the situation I posted. Maybe your last response was for that situation, and I misunderstood. Just let me know if it was, and if I did, sorry for that!

Edit: Its the post right before that picture frazzled put up.

TK - how are they "vague" words?

They are very clear and very simple: if you DS within 1" of an enemy model, instead of being destroyed you move the models out the way

Now, does that let you bypass miishap? No, because it does not mention mishap

So you still roll mishap, and ONLY IF you roll a 1 - 2 does the special rule kick in.

Those are the actual rules.

I think he is wondering how to measure that 1"

The measuring rules could allow you to leave a model onto of another one, if WMS and the movement section are glossed over and only the measuring distances is used.

This actually happens somewhat often with Valkyries, for example.

kirsanth wrote:I think he is wondering how to measure that 1"

The measuring rules could allow you to leave a model onto of another one, if WMS and the movement section are glossed over and only the measuring distances is used.

This actually happens somewhat often with Valkyries, for example.

you can do it with your friendly models, sure, but not with enemie models, and as far as Valkyries, yeah, they are higher cause of their stands, but you would use the stand to determine distance at that point, IMHO.

Galador wrote:you can do it with your friendly models, sure, but not with enemie models, and as far as Valkyries, yeah, they are higher cause of their stands, but you would use the stand to determine distance at that point, IMHO.

Not according to the rules. . . .

Page 2

The reading cat is correct, the two big skimmers only use the base for assault, (dis)embarking and disrupting/capturing objects.

Jidmah wrote:The reading cat is correct, the two big skimmers only use the base for assault, (dis)embarking and disrupting/capturing objects.

lol new fight different thread. Your base cant be within 1" of an enemy base(.)

As for the comment above. I believe the model has to be placed first.


For the RAW side of the argument. Not to be interpreted as an insult for the thin skinned. lol. Have you all ever heard of the U.S. Constitution and the RAI in the form of the Judicial Branch?

Tomb King wrote:Your base cant be within 1" of an enemy base(.)

Nope. Models cannot MOVE within an inch. Placement is not mentioned, and the move is not determined until DS is resolved.
Editing to add: Unless you think the scatter is part of the move, but then you have a lot of other issues.

Tomb King wrote:Have you all ever heard of the U.S. Constitution and the RAI in the form of the Judicial Branch?

It is oft asserted that law is more RAI than RAW.

Tomb King wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The reading cat is correct, the two big skimmers only use the base for assault, (dis)embarking and disrupting/capturing objects.

lol new fight different thread. Your base cant be within 1" of an enemy base(.)

There is no such rule. The only two rules that do exist, are
1) that distance is mesured from the hull for all vehicles and from the base for all non-vehicle units
2) units may not come within 1" during regular movement, it is allowed at other times

As for the comment above. I believe the model has to be placed first.

You may deepstrike on top of anything, as long as it's between the table edges. You might mishap though.

For the RAW side of the argument. Not to be interpreted as an insult for the thin skinned. lol. Have you all ever heard of the U.S. Constitution and the RAI in the form of the Judicial Branch?

You should read the YMDC rules:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

You almost managed to violate all of them. If you are not looking for RAW, you should not ask whether a "cheesy" tactic works, at least not on this forum.

Game rules are not supposed to be interpreted, you only interpret when you have no other option, which results from bad writing. You don't have a differentiation of RAW and RAI in well-written game rules.
You don't interpret laws of physics by insisting on walking over the grand canion without a bridge, do you?
The constitution is supposed to be interpreted, as you can impossibly write rules for everything every single person in the US will ever do.

So as long as you can find an exact answer by simply following the rules, you are not supposed to interpret anything, no matter how stupid the result may be.
After you've done that, take the RAW and apply TMIR to it(which does include asking your opponent), and have a fun game.