So I'm back. Again. And stuff.

Anyway, as per the usual I have Necron questions. Some are classics that I can't for the life of me understand why they haven't been addressed yet, but some are new and fascinating. I'm interested in seeing what you guys think. As for the questions themselves, I have a question about them. I think some of these might engender several pages of discussion apiece, and to throw them all together in one thread would diminish some of the less distracting (but imho equally valid) questions. I'm asking the mods' permission to post each of these issues separately. I've only posted the first question below. If I am allowed to make multiple threads, I will post the others each in their own respective thread. If I am not allowed to make multiple threads, I will post the questions one by one, each after I've deemed the conversation has reached a consensus or conclusion as it relates to the current question. Without further ado,

First (actually several related questions, and these situations have come up repeatedly in games) if a squad of Necrons is further than 6" from another Necron unit of the same type, but still within 12" of a Tomb Spyder, its members can roll WBB and are added to another unit on the battlefield of the same type.

A) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose which unit they are attached to?

B) If there are multiple units that are eligible to receive the survivors of the squad in question, can the Necron player choose to have some of the members join one of the eligible units and some join another?

C) Are the models that failed a WBB roll in this kind of situation eligible for re-roll if their new unit is sent through a monolith portal?

Thanks, in advance, to everyone.

A) Yes, as usual. If there were 3 units within 6" then you would pick which one it joins
B) Yes, as before. WBB is per model, aftrer all
B) No. You dont join a unit until after you PASS a WBB. Meaning thast only the original unit which had models awaiting WBB can port troops through. You know this because the rules for WBB only assign unit ownership on success, meaning they must belong to the original unit before that point (as nothing says they dont belong to anyone) and because of the mono rules.

I have re-read my codex rules, and, as usual, have come away with slightly better understanding. I agree with Noseferatu's reasoning about issue C, but realized that both A and B are answered within the codex, though this is different than what Nosferatu had said. Repaired necrons must be placed in coherency with the nearest unit of the same type, so you cannot actually choose which unit RAW. I think it would make sense that you could choose which unit if two were equidistant, however. I think that these first issues have been answered to my satisfaction, but are still somewhat unclear in some tournament settings and should be clarified by either GW or the INAT FAQ.

I didn't expect that to be so simple

EDIT: I suppose I should toss question number two on here if it's this close to the start of the thread.

Second, Necron units often can get new members, sometimes even to the point where the squad has more members than it started with. In some cases a unit can lose several of its members, but a lucky roll can return them all to the fight. In such a situation, if the unit is not involved in a combat, are they placed in coherency simultaneously or one by one? For example, if 20 downed Necron Warriors are coming back to a unit that has only one Necron Warrior left standing, are they simultaneously placed within 2" of that one model, or are they placed one by one, each in coherency with a member that has successfully resurrected? Keep in mind that 20 Warriors do not fit in coherency with a single Warrior (so what happens to the ones that don't fit in coherency if the resurrection is simultaneous?) and that a unit can stretch across a significant distance if it receives enough new models if those models are placed one by one (2" + a warrior base + 2" + a warrior base, etc. etc.)

Kitzz wrote:
Second, Necron units often can get new members, sometimes even to the point where the squad has more members than it started with. In some cases a unit can lose several of its members, but a lucky roll can return them all to the fight. In such a situation, if the unit is not involved in a combat, are they placed in coherency simultaneously or one by one? For example, if 20 downed Necron Warriors are coming back to a unit that has only one Necron Warrior left standing, are they simultaneously placed within 2" of that one model, or are they placed one by one, each in coherency with a member that has successfully resurrected? Keep in mind that 20 Warriors do not fit in coherency with a single Warrior (so what happens to the ones that don't fit in coherency if the resurrection is simultaneous?) and that a unit can stretch across a significant distance if it receives enough new models if those models are placed one by one (2" + a warrior base + 2" + a warrior base, etc. etc.)

Here again the answer is in the codex.

You roll a D6 for each Necron eligible for WBB. Doesn't say to roll all in one go, so they can be rolled for 1 at a time. This is the way myself and my Necron opponent do it.

The repaired Necron is placed in coherency witht he nearest Necron unit.

Once joined to the unit, the repaired Necron moves and fights with it for the rest of the game.

So it is joined once it is placed in coherency. From that point on it is part of the unit.

The next repaired Necron can then be placed in coherency with that model, and so on.

Kitzz wrote:... As for the questions themselves, I have a question about them. I think some of these might engender several pages of discussion apiece, and to throw them all together in one thread would diminish some of the less distracting (but imho equally valid) questions. I'm asking the mods' permission to post each of these issues separately.

It seems like your initial questions have been resolved, but for future reference, posting unrelated questions each in their own threads is fine, although it helps readers if you put a bit of effort into thread titles in that case. 16 threads all entitled 'Another Necron question' is going to annoy people.

If the questions all have a common theme (like all being about WBB, for example) they're better off in a single thread.

@time wizard: Could you quote the section of the codex where it says they are resolved one by one rather than simultaneously? I can't find it. It says to roll a d6 for every Necron capable of self-repair, which implies all WBB rolls are simultaneous, but doesn't state it explicitly. Just because the rules don't say something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. I would favor your interpretation, as the shenanigan potential in favor of the Necron army is enormous, but I can't find a solid answer within the Codex (at least right now).

EDIT: I am revising my comment to time wizard. Since the WBB rule is written with all singular nouns except for the passage I mentioned, and because shenanigans are fun, I believe his interpretation is correct.

And as that question seems well-covered, I shall move to the next one.

Third, a Tomb Spyder that makes a Scarab Swarm suffers a wound if it rolls a one for its Artificer rule. Can the Spyder take its 3+ save against the wound, as is the case for a "Gets Hot!" roll from a plasma weapon?

It doesn't specifically say to roll one at a time, but if Warrior 1 (W1) is closer to unit A and W2 is closer to unit B and you roll both of them at the same time and one makes it and one doesn't, how do we know which one made it? The one joining unit A or the one joining unit B? What if unit B is one model below half and falling back? I'm supposed to let you roll them together and if one of them makes it, you get to CHOOSE which one made it? I don't think so.

A. Only one unit is going to be the closest to that particular model, so no, you don't get to choose.
B. Same answer, only one unit is going to be the closest to that particular model.
C. No.

You can take an armour save against it, unless it says it takes a wound with no "saves" or "armour saves" allowed

@nosferatu: Well, if we're agreed on that, I think we should move on.

Fourth, a Tomb Spyder makes Scarab Swarms at the beginning of the Assault Phase. When a swarm is created, is there a specific location it has to be placed (does it have to be in base-to-base contact or can it be within 2" coherency)? The issue here is that a swarm can be placed within 2" coherency via RAW, effectively extending the assault range of a Tomb Spyder unit by more than 3.5"

Kitzz wrote:Fourth, a Tomb Spyder makes Scarab Swarms at the beginning of the Assault Phase. When a swarm is created, is there a specific location it has to be placed (does it have to be in base-to-base contact or can it be within 2" coherency)? The issue here is that a swarm can be placed within 2" coherency via RAW, effectively extending the assault range of a Tomb Spyder unit by more than 3.5"

The Necron codex says the swarm is placed in contact with the spyder.
The swarms that are produced form a unit with the spyder and must stay in coherency with it for the rest of the game.

So the swarm that is produced can extend the range of the spyder by the base of the swarm, but you can't place the swarm just under 2" from the spyder when it is created.

@ time wizard: I, again, agree on this.

I should remind everyone reading that every single one of these questions has come up in a game at some point. These are things that normal people found confusing. This last one was confusing because...

...Fifth: If a Tomb Spyder is not in close combat, but does not have enough room adjacent to its base to place a Scarab Swarm, and uses the Artificer ability, what happens?

I would say that if you're dumb enough to do this the Scarab base is lost. If it's a case of popping it hoping to have room to place it it's a bit of a gamble.

You aren't required to pop scarabs, after all, and any model that needs to be placed but has no room to be places is considered destroyed, i think?

Kitzz - except that question was answered by directly reading the Artificer entry. It is not possible to be confused by "in contact with"

If you cannot place the model, you cannot place the model, and it is destroyed.

@Nosferatu: I understand that to some people, these questions have obvious answers and I am here to let you know that each one of these questions has come up in a game at one point or another. They are generally semi-confusing scenarios, especially for a Necron player to explain to a non-Necron player. This last one was an exception to that, where the Necron player did not want to lose his scarab swarm simply because his Tomb Spyder was among a mass of other models.

Thanks for your responses thus far. There are only a few left, but these next few are the ones that are the most contentious because they affect the game the most.

Sixth, Phase Out is calculated "at the beginning of the Necron turn" "after all We'll Be Back! rolls have been taken." The reason I separated the one quote into two is that they are (seemingly) contradictory. Monoliths can cause a re-roll of WBB, so at the beginning of the turn it is quite possible that all of the WBB rolls have not been taken yet. I think most people understand how this likely works, but it may need clarification. Is Phase Out calculated after the first, "normal," set of WBB rolls are taken, or ASAP after all rolls, including the Monolith re-rolls, are taken?

I think you answered your own question there, Kitzz. The start of the turn WBB rolls are the ones that you get before Phase Out! is checked for. The Monolith re-rolls don't happen regularly (or at all if you don't have a monolith) so they aren't incorporated in the (worst ever) army-wide special rule.

It is after ALL WBB rolls have been made; start of turn and start of movement phase are synonymous here.

It is only semi confusing if you ignroe the "put in base contact" wording and substitute for something else. It simply is a case of reading the entry carefully as the question is explicitly answered in the text

Kitzz wrote:
Sixth, Phase Out is calculated "at the beginning of the Necron turn" "after all We'll Be Back! rolls have been taken." The reason I separated the one quote into two is that they are (seemingly) contradictory. Monoliths can cause a re-roll of WBB, so at the beginning of the turn it is quite possible that all of the WBB rolls have not been taken yet. I think most people understand how this likely works, but it may need clarification. Is Phase Out calculated after the first, "normal," set of WBB rolls are taken, or ASAP after all rolls, including the Monolith re-rolls, are taken?

The key is found in the Monolith section that says that models in the unit that were eligible to self repair but "...failled their 'We'll Be Back' roll at the start of the turn and were removed, may re-roll once as they emerge from the portal."

The phase out rule says you calculate it at the start of the turn after all WBB rolls have been made.

Monolith re-rolls are taken by models that failed the roll and were removed at the beginning of the turn. Clearly those models cannot be included in the current force for calculating phase out since, when you calculated phase out, they were removed.

Exactly. If the monolith's re-rolls of failed WBB were intended to count for phase-out calculation, then phase out should have been written to be checked at the end of the necron player's movement phase.

Again, thanks for your responses and agreement. Glad to know I'm not the only one doing things these ways.

Anyway, now for some fun stuff.

Sixth, Etheric Tempest.

A) If my opponent's unit is on the board edge and The Nightbringer is facing it directly, will it be destroyed similar to other units that fall back and find the table edge?
B) Does this work on fearless units?
C) If my opponent is situated according to the X in the following picture, with The Nightbringer being 0 and impassible terrain/enemy/friendly models being |, is the unit Trapped! and thus destroyed? Assume that both spaces left and right of The Nightbringer are NOT large enough for the unit to move through without being within 1" of an enemy.
|||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| X ||||||||| ||||||||| O |||||||||||
D) Does this work on fearless units?
E) Same question as C, with a twist. Assume that both spaces left and right of The Nightbringer are large enough for the unit to move through without being within 1" of an enemy.
-------Opponent's Table Edge------- O |||||| X ||||| |||||||||||||||||| -----------Your Table Edge------------
F) Does this work on fearless units?

EDIT: So...the spacing doesn't work in my examples for some reason. Assume in both cases that The Nightbringer is directly above/below the unit in question.

EDIT2: Thanks, nosferatu!

IF you want to preserve multiple spaces you need to use the CODE tags.

From memory it does not work on fearless - check out the FAQ.

Fixed! And no, there's nothing about it not affecting fearless units.

If i remember right it works on any unit not comprised entirely of S 4+ (base) models. It's not a morale test, so Fearless would hae no effect.

It drives them directly away from the Nightbringer, i think. I'll need to hit up my codex to be sure, but i think it mentions it as working similarly in mechanics to falling back. They aren't actually falling back out of fear so much as being driven back by an explosion of gribbly energy.

I'll update if no-one else has when i can get to me dex

A- The unit is destroyed if it comes in contact with it's own board edge.

B- Yes, because the unit is not actually falling back.

C- The mechanic for the movement is the same as falling back. So if the situation would cause a unit to be destroyed durring a normal fall back move would still destroy the unit. It should be noted that the unit does not "Regroup" durring their turn but instead are free to move normally.

D- Yes, see "B".

E- While the mechanic for the movement is the same as falling back. There are differences in the rules. Namely the direction that the unit moves. In a normal fall back move the direction is your own table edge. But in Etheric Tempest the movement is directly away from the Nightbringer. So again the unit is trapped because it cannot move away from the Nightbringer without back tracking.

F- Yes, see "B".

What he said

Rulesninja'd

Well, if we are agreed on that, I believe the list of questions is growing rather smaller!

Seventh, I have for the duration of 5th ed. played that as long as the center hole of the blast is over an enemy model, it is a legal target. This is incredibly important to the Monolith, which treats all models under the hole as ap1 rather than ap3. There have been many situations where more than one model, including even multiple vehicles, have been under the center hole, and I believe that both models suffer ap1 hits. Am I correct?

Kitzz wrote:Seventh, I have for the duration of 5th ed. played that as long as the center hole of the blast is over an enemy model, it is a legal target. This is incredibly important to the Monolith, which treats all models under the hole as ap1 rather than ap3. There have been many situations where more than one model, including even multiple vehicles, have been under the center hole, and I believe that both models suffer ap1 hits. Am I correct?

No. None of the models are hit at all since the Necron Codex says any model under the hole in the middle of the Ordnance template gets hit, and there is no such thing as an "Ordnance template", only small and large blast markers.

But in actuality, the codex does say any model under the hole in the 'marker' is hit with an AP1 attack. The question would be, does this mean any model partially under the hole is hit with an AP1 attack?
This is similar to the rules for Blast weapons which does state "...all models whose bases are completely or partially covered by the blast marker are hit...".
So I would say that any model whose base (or hull) lies completely or partially under the center hole of the large blast marker would suffer an AP1 hit from the Particle Whip.

How high do you hold your blast markers over the models you're firing at? I can't imagine a scenario where 2 vehicles would get part of that tiny hole over their hull at the same time...maybe 2 infantry that are bunched together, though. I can see it being useful vs terminators and only if they're positioned (imo) far too close together.

Yeah, you might think it's rare, but it happens to me every third match or so.

NEARLY DONE (unless I think of more).

Eighth, If a Monolith rams in the movement phase, can it fire its Particle Whip?

Cannot fire any weapons is most likely overridden by the whips rules, so I would guess yes.

The power matrix rules allow it to be used even if the Monolith moves.
However, the particle whip is a weapon, it is specified as such twice in the Necorn codex.
As such, if the Monolith rammed in the movement phase, it would not be able to shoot in that turn's Shooting phase.
That would include the Gauss Flux Arcs and the Particle Whip both.

@time wizard: Are you sure? It is supposed to be able to fire "even if it moves," and ramming is a type of movement. Also, the INAT FAQ says that a Monolith can fire the particle whip on the same turn it deep strikes. I'm not sure why the term "weapon" has any relevance; could you point me to the place that it comes up?

This was debated to death in another thread about whether the Monolith could fire the particle whip if it deep strikes.
My position, along with my friend who plays Necrons was that it could not.
It also could not fire the particle whip if it rams.

Here are the relevant points.
Necron codex page 21 under Power Matrix;
"The Monolith may use its power matix in one of the following ways each Necron turn:"

Now one way is to teleport Necrons or to bring in a unit of Necron warriors held in reserve. No problem there.
The other way is to discharge it as a particle whip.
So what is a Particle Whip?
Necron Summary page 22 lists the Particle whip under weapons with a range, strength, AP and a type of Ordnance 1 / Blast.
Necron Codex page 14 last sentence under Particle Whip, "The particle whip is an Ordnance weapon."
Latest Necron FAQ:
Q. Can the Monolith fire its particle whip and
gauss flux projectors in the same turn?
A. No, the Monolith cannot fire the particle whip
(as it is an ordnance weapon) and gauss flux
projectors in the same turn. The particle whip
uses the large blast marker and its range and line
of sight are measured from any of the Monolith’s
weapons.

Clearly, the particle whip is a weapon, nothing more and nothing less.
Firing it is one of 2 possible uses for the power matrix.

The Necron Codex gives the Monolith permission to use the power matrix once per turn, but nothing in the Necron Cdex or the FAQ gives the Monolith permission to shoot if the rules for vehicles do not allow it.

So if a vehicle rams, including a Monolith, it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase, like any other vehicle in the game.

Bottom line is that using the power matrix and firing a weapon are 2 separate and mutually exclusive things, and permission to do one does not automatically give permission to do the other.

@time wizard: Even though the monolith rules specifically state that it (the Power Matrix) cannot be destroyed by a "weapon destroyed" result and that it can be used even if the Monolith "moves, or is shaken or stunned?"

Kitzz wrote:@time wizard: Are you sure? It is supposed to be able to fire "even if it moves," and ramming is a type of movement. Also, the INAT FAQ says that a Monolith can fire the particle whip on the same turn it deep strikes. I'm not sure why the term "weapon" has any relevance; could you point me to the place that it comes up?

Being able to fire 'even if it moves' doesn't over-ride any specific restriction that may arise.

Firing when Deep Striking is a slightly different issue. With Deep Striking there is no specific prohibition on shooting... vehicles are only restricted by the speed at which they have moved. So the INAT ruled in favour of the Monolith still being able to shoot because the Monolith's own rules don't care about the speed at which it moved... it can fire if it moves. (This is a contentious area though, so I wouldn't recommend taking the INAT as gospel on this unless you're playing somewhere that actually has the INAT in use)

Ramming is different in that the prohibition on shooting isn't tied to speed... the vehicle is simply prohibited from shooting. So the Monolith's rules allow it to shoot even when it moves, but the rules for the specific action being performed (Ramming) prohibit shooting.

Kitzz wrote:@time wizard: Even though the monolith rules specifically state that it (the Power Matrix) cannot be destroyed by a "weapon destroyed" result and that it can be used even if the Monolith "moves, or is shaken or stunned?"

Again, bear in mind that the power matrix rule does not say the particle whip may fire.

It says as I quoted, that the power matrix may be used even if the Monolith moves.

One way it may be used is to teleport Necrons.
But even in that, it must follow the rules for passengers diesmbarking from a transport vehicle.
From the Necron FAQ:
Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a
Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit)
hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the
unit has already moved before being teleported,
it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if
it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and
then move normally.

So we here have a precedent that the power matrix can be used but in one instance, teleporting Necrons, it must still follow the rules in the main rulebook.

The other way the power matrix can be used is to discharge (fire) the particle whip, an ordnance weapon.
Nowhere in the Necron Codex or any Necron FAQ do we find that "The Monolith may fire the particle whip even if it moves."

Firing the particle whip must still follow the rules for vehicles firing weapons in the main rulebook. All of them.

I am aware of the INAT FAQ, but even this forum acknowledges that to be a local houserule, and in this instance, the rules do not support that (the INAT FAQ) interpretation.

I'm not looking to re-open the entire "monolith firing" debate here, but this is how the rules read.

There is a substantial and specific difference between allowing a vehicle to "use" something and allowing it to "fire" something.

If the Monolith moves up to combat speed, it may use the power matrix as either a teleporter or a weapon.
But if it moves at cruising speed or rams, it may not fire any weapon, so one of those options is no longer available.
However, it may still teleport Necrons, subject to the restrictions in the FAQ.

@insaniak: I can use the same logic as it applies to the monolith. The Power Matrix rule has no reference to speed either. And since ramming is definitely a type of movement, I don't think that your argument works. As for the INAT not being gospel, I agree. But they resolved a similar issue, and the only difference in actual RAW between the two issues is that the word "firing" is used instead of the word "shooting."

@time wizard: The FAQ deals with the disembarking of passengers, but does not say anything about shooting. Also, as Codex > BRB, if I "use" the Matrix to "discharge" the particle whip, that's also not explicitly "firing" it. An equally valid interpretation of that FAQ is "of course the monolith can't fire both the Particle Whip and the Flux Arc in the same shooting phase, because the monolith says 'discharge.' Because 'discharge' isn't a term in the rules, we'll define the action in the terms of the rulebook by saying 'The particle whip uses the large blast marker and its range and line of sight are measured from any of the Monolith’s weapons.'"

EDIT: Disputed time wizard's argument

Kitzz wrote:@insaniak: I can use the same logic as it applies to the monolith. The Power Matrix rule has no reference to speed either. And since ramming is definitely a type of movement, I don't think that your argument works.

Speed is not the issue. That's the whole point.


The Power Matrix is allowed to fire, even if the Monolith moves. Which means that the Monolith's movement has no effect on its ability to use the Power Matrix.

Ramming is a type of movement, yes. But it's not the movement that prohibits shooting. It's the fact that the Ramming rules specifically prohibit shooting.

So the Monolith can use the Power Matrix when it moves, but can not shoot if it Rams. The more specific rule wins, but in this case it's not even down to the specificity of the rule, because the Ramming shooting prohibition doesn't care about movement.


This is in the same league as trying to assault with Fleet models that Ran after Deep Striking. A rule that allows you to assault even if you Run over-rides the specific prohibition on assaulting after Running. It doesn't over-ride any other prohibition on assaulting.

Likewise, the Monolith's rule allows it to use the Particle Whip after moving. That doesn't over-ride any other prohibition on shooting.

@insaniak: From the BRB, "Ramming is a rather desperate manoeuvre and means that the tank must concentrate on moving at top speed towards one enemy vehicle. This means that it may not shoot in that turn's Shooting phase, making it an attractive choice for vehicles that have no armament left, or are shaken."

The italics are for emphasis. "This," agreed, is an obscure pronoun reference. I believe the difference in our arguments is that you believe that "This" refers to the "concentrate" whereas I believe it refers to the "moving." As "concentrate" is rather undefined in terms of game rules (and even so, I doubt a mindless machine can concentrate in terms of RaI), I personally have to go with the defined game term. You're free to disagree, of course, but I don't see another way out of the impasse.

I have no idea where you think you're going with analysing the meaning of 'this', frankly.

The Monolith can use the Particle Whip when moving.
However, Ramming is a specific type of movement. As always, a rule that applies to a specific action takes precedence over a more general rule.

Ramming is more specific than moving.
So 'no shooting while Ramming' trumps 'may shoot while moving'.

@insaniak: The Fearless USR doesn't do anything by that logic. Each Morale and Pinning test happens for a specific reason elsewhere in the rules. Therefore, even though fearless units normally ignore such tests, because nearly all such tests are delineated separately within the rules they are more specific, the Fearless USR does not apply to them as it is a general case and they are all specific. Note also that they don't specifically say "unless the model(s) are Fearless" as part of their description, either.

I tihnk you might need to have another look at the Fearless rule. It's a completely different interaction.

How so?

[quote=Kitzz@time wizard: The FAQ deals with the disembarking of passengers, but does not say anything about shooting. Also, as Codex > BRB, if I "use" the Matrix to "discharge" the particle whip, that's also not explicitly "firing" it. An equally valid interpretation of that FAQ is "of course the monolith can't fire both the Particle Whip and the Flux Arc in the same shooting phase, because the monolith says 'discharge.' Because 'discharge' isn't a term in the rules, we'll define the action in the terms of the rulebook by saying 'The particle whip uses the large blast marker and its range and line of sight are measured from any of the Monolith’s weapons.'"

EDIT: Disputed time wizard's argument

@time wizard: If you want to argue RaI, I'm happy to do so, but I was looking for a more conclusive answer than, "they could have said so but didn't." They could have written an amendment about any of the several hundred issues in the INAT FAQ that are still unresolved, but they didn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you want to argue specific vs. general, see my argument as it pertains to the Fearless USR.

Not like ramming 6" is that useful anyway. I am, however, inclined to agree with time wizard and insaniak. The way I see it is that by ramming a vehicle you are combining your movement and your "action" all in one phase. But whether it's movement or not or however you want to interpret it, I think it's pretty clear when they say "you do this, you can't do that". And nothing in the monolith rules says that it can fire the whip when it rams, only when it moves, is shaken or stunned. That's it.

I'm actually surprised though that the power of the machine spirit argument hasn't come up yet, but I presume that ramming is akin to popping smoke.

Kitzz wrote:How so?

Fearless doesn't let you ignore Morale tests. It lets you automatically pass them. So a specific rule doesn't need to specify that you can use the Fearless ability, since those specific rules never state a set way of taking the test. They just tell you to take a Morale test. So there is never a conflict.

The Ramming vs Shooting issue is completely different. While the Monolith can normally shoot while moving, the rules for one specific type of movement say that you can't shoot while performing that action. There are a bunch of ways you can look at that:

- Movement in general allows shooting, Ramming (specific type of movement) does not: more specific rule wins.
- Allowed to shoot regardless of movement speed, Ramming prohibition not keyed to speed, just a blanket 'may not shoot': specific prohibition wins.
- One rule allows an action (may shoot when moving), one rule prohibits the same thing (may not shoot while Ramming): take the path that breaks no rule.

...all of which lead to No Shooting While Ramming Land.

The Power Matrix says you can shoot if you move. Fearless says you automatically pass Morale/Pinning tests.

Your argument was that ramming is a specific way of moving. My argument is that taking morale tests from shooting, losing an assault, tank shock, taking wounds from Pinning weapons, and some special abilities are all specific reasons for taking Morale/Pinning tests.

I'll use your examples to illustrate:
- Fearless in general allows you to automatically pass morale/shooting tests, taking 25% casualties from shooting says that the unit "must pass a Morale check": the more specific rule wins.
- Fearless allows for passing any Morale or Pinning checks, Tank Shock not keyed to passing tests automatically, just a blanket "must take a Morale check": specific test wins.
- One rule allows an action (passing a Pinning test), one rule prohibits the same thing (must immediately take a pinning test when receiving wounds from a Pinning weapon): take the path that breaks no rule.

...all of which lead to Fearless USR Being Useless Land.

Kitzz wrote:- Fearless in general allows you to automatically pass morale/shooting tests, taking 25% casualties from shooting says that the unit "must pass a Morale check": the more specific rule wins.

Where are you seeing a conflict between those two rules?

The morale rules tell you that you must pass a morale test. Fearless says 'You pass'... which satisfies the morale rule. There is no conflict there.

- Fearless allows for passing any Morale or Pinning checks, Tank Shock not keyed to passing tests automatically, just a blanket "must take a Morale check": specific test wins.

Again, no conflict. Tank shock says that they have to take the test. Fearless says that they automatically pass it. There is no conflict here.

- One rule allows an action (passing a Pinning test), one rule prohibits the same thing (must immediately take a pinning test when receiving wounds from a Pinning weapon): take the path that breaks no rule.

How does something forcing you to take a test prohibit you from passing it?

By that logic, nobody could ever pass a test of any kind.

Excuse me for not inserting the "automatically;" it was quite obviously implied. I agree that there is no conflict, but you are the one who has been saying that there is. Automatically passing the test is not taking the test. That's the difference.

Kitzz wrote:Excuse me for not inserting the "automatically;" it was quite obviously implied. I agree that there is no conflict, but you are the one who has been saying that there is.

Er... no. You were the one who brought up the whole Fearless thing.

Automatically passing the test is not taking the test.

Of course it's not. Taking the test is taking the test. Automatically passing is something that happens when you take the test.

This is obviously going to go on forever, so I'd rather not distract the general purpose of this thread. If anyone wants to talk about this issue further, they can pm me or what have you. I have more questions.

Ninth: The Monolith can teleport squads of Necrons as if they were disembarking. Unfortunately, it has only one access point, and larger squads can't all fit within the given 2" for disembarking. RAW these extra models seem to be destroyed, even though there is no damage done to the monolith. Further, if the 2" disembark rule does indeed apply in this case, is a model whose base is only partially within the 2" removed?

1) See measuring to units. You measure to the nearest part of the base, if that is within 2" the model is considered to be within 2"

2) They must disembark, so you could argue they emergency disembark

Emergency disembarkation says that if the disembarkation is impossible, they can't disembark.

....as in, if you cannot disembark from anywhere on the hull, then the disembark is impossible. yOu have only described the access point not having enough space.

Ah, I see. Thank you. It's still odd that the unit won't be able to move, shoot, or assault afterward, however. I'm satisfied with the answer, though, so onto the next question:

Tenth, which Monolith facing is “the front” for the purposes of tank shocking?

Any. The armour is the same all round

Technically it is the facing with the portal on it, i guess

Kitzz wrote:Ah, I see. Thank you. It's still odd that the unit won't be able to move, shoot, or assault afterward, however. I'm satisfied with the answer, though, so onto the next question:

Its not odd - theyve just phased out through their vehicles hull. THats likely to leave them a little confused!

Eleventh, the Deceiver can use his Deceive power in the shooting phase, but can only use his Dread power in the Necron Assault phase. Does this mean that he can use Deceive in the enemy shooting phase?

Not unless he has something specifically allowing him to, no

Can you explain that? Why wouldn't the entry as it currently exists be treated as something specifically allowing him to do so?

Kitzz wrote:Can you explain that? Why wouldn't the entry as it currently exists be treated as something specifically allowing him to do so?

Because it doesn't specifically allow him to do so.

'The shooting phase' does not specifically refer to your opponent's shooting phase. You are only given permission to perform actions in your own phase unless a rule specifically says otherwise.

Thanks, Insaniak.

Question...whatever. A big number. Can the Deceiver use Deceive and also Run! in the same shooting phase? If yes, does the order in which they are used matter?

Deceive doesn't say anything about being used instead of shooting, or in any way affecting what you can do in the shooting phase. So yes, I see no reason that he couldn't run in the same turn, and no, which order you perform those actions in shouldn't make a difference.

You're putting a lot of work into your own faq that will be rendered useless once the new codex hits ><

Our codex has been "next" for a half-decade. It isn't useless for this Ard Boyz season, and it isn't useless for the people who will play Necrons between now and the Codex release. I have a feeling I won't be seeing Necrons until after Black Templars and Tau. Just my jaded experience I suppose, but I won't be surprised if I'm right.

If by "next" you mean, "only wish listing for the past 5 years and not solid rumors until April of this year" lol

They actually are going to be this year. As for Tau and Templars, thats up for grabs. There has been talk of Dark Angels in there too, but nothing solid yet I don't think

Sisters are next. White Dwarf said so. Whatever these "solid rumors" are, I'd like to see them. I've seen nothing different than before. In any case, I saved the oddest for last.

Question last:
Ehh this is complicated, so I've attached a jpeg to this message for you to refer to. In the image, the square shape is the Monolith, from a bird's-eye view, hollowed out so you can see what is underneath it as it is Deep Striking. The black circles represent a squad of models (let's say IG) that the monolith is landing on. Assume that model A is equidistant from all four sides of the Monolith. Assume that model B is currently 2" away from the nearest model to it.

A) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules imply that you do the moving, do you decide which side A is moved to, or does your opponent? Will this apply to all models equidistant from two or more sides of a Deep Striking monolith? Is there an order in which you move models, or is it considered simultaneous? Note that if a large vehicle was southwest of B, B might have to be moved a significant distance.

B) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules state that models in the way of its Deep Strike are moved the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith, will B thus be out of coherency with the rest of its squad? Note the implications of question A as it relates to this issue.

Well, buried somewhere within the 60+ pages of yakface's post there was a rumor on them coming out in October, after the Sisters in August. I give his rumors a bit more credit, seeing as how he nailed the grey knights, dark eldar, and tyranids so well.

As far as the movement question, I recall something similar to this being posted before. Pretty sure the consensus was that units moved the minimum while maintaining it, which actually allowed the units to move further than that actual minimum. However, since I can't cite that in the actual rules, it might have just been typical YMDC agreement (or lack there of lol)

You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

The Monolith rules tell you to move the models out of the way, not how to do it.

And the Monolith follows the rules of the deep strike mishap table. The specific rule on page 21 of the Necron codex only comes into play if the Monolith player rolls a 'destroyed' result on the deep strike mishap table.
But that subject was done to death some time ago.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

No, no it doesnt. It states TO MOVE, in order to move you must follow the movement rules, meaning no out of coherency allowed. If you disagree please quote these supposed rules that dont exist in my 2nd printing of the necron codex

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

Wrong. IT IF WOULD BE DESTROYED you move models out of the way. Dont ignore rules when Ive already alluded to them. When would it be destroyed? If it rolls a 1 - 2 result on the mishap table. NOTHING allows you to ignoer mishaps in general. Oddly enough because mishaps didnt exist in 3rd ed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

No, no it doesnt. It states TO MOVE, in order to move you must follow the movement rules, meaning no out of coherency allowed. If you disagree please quote these supposed rules that dont exist in my 2nd printing of the necron codex

Page 21 of the Codex Necron: "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith." Nothing is stated about making sure to keep the unit in coherence, just move the models out of the way with minimal movement. This would result in the OP example of B potentially moving out of coherency.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

Wrong. IT IF WOULD BE DESTROYED you move models out of the way. Dont ignore rules when Ive already alluded to them. When would it be destroyed? If it rolls a 1 - 2 result on the mishap table. NOTHING allows you to ignoer mishaps in general. Oddly enough because mishaps didnt exist in 3rd ed.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The rules state to move the models out of the way if the Monolith lands on enemy models. The fact it isn't destroyed when landing on/near enemy models has no bearing on how the Monolith enters play. This is the same interpretation the INAT has (see NEC.21C.03).

No, that's not what the rule actually 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........."

"it is not destroyed". So only one of the three possible Mishap results apply, the other two are not ignored and occur as normal. Only the Destroyed result is changed by the Monolith rules.

don_mondo wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The rules state to move the models out of the way if the Monolith lands on enemy models. The fact it isn't destroyed when landing on/near enemy models has no bearing on how the Monolith enters play. This is the same interpretation the INAT has (see NEC.21C.03).

No, that's not what the rule actually 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........."

"it is not destroyed". So only one of the three possible Mishap results apply, the other two are not ignored and occur as normal. Only the Destroyed result is changed by the Monolith rules.

Though I play it the way you interpret the rule (just to avoid the hassle) I'm still personally of the opinion that the intent of the rule is to avoid mishaps all together when enemies are in the way, considering the only "result" from this in third edition was to be destroyed, that was the only result that needed to be mentioned. So as I said, the intent of the rule is somewhat clear but the fact that GW didn't include it in the FAQ update doesn't leave any actual fighting room to say if the rule works one way or another.

Also, I pretty much never deep strike my monoliths either so that helps out too.

don_mondo wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The rules state to move the models out of the way if the Monolith lands on enemy models. The fact it isn't destroyed when landing on/near enemy models has no bearing on how the Monolith enters play. This is the same interpretation the INAT has (see NEC.21C.03).

No, that's not what the rule actually 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........."

"it is not destroyed". So only one of the three possible Mishap results apply, the other two are not ignored and occur as normal. Only the Destroyed result is changed by the Monolith rules.

Uh, the rules don't state "If the Monolith is destroyed, move the models out of the way" it makes a blanket statement that the Monolith isn't destroyed when landing on enemy models (a reference to third and fourth edition rules) and that the enemy models are just moved out of the way. This is a similar rule to the Drop Pod which just stops short of enemy models instead of landing on them. No mishap role is made in that instance either.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Uh, the rules don't state "If the Monolith is destroyed, move the models out of the way" it makes a blanket statement that the Monolith isn't destroyed when landing on enemy models (a reference to third and fourth edition rules) and that the enemy models are just moved out of the way. This is a similar rule to the Drop Pod which just stops short of enemy models instead of landing on them. No mishap role is made in that instance either.

First, the drop pod has a special rule that specifically says that if the scatter distance would cause the pod to land on friendly or enemy models, you reduce the scatter distance to avoid the models.
What happens if you choose to place the drop pod onto an enemy unit and it doesn't scatter? You don't reduce the scatter distance, you suffer a mishap.

Second, the deep strike rule for the Monolith was written 2 editions of the main rules ago.
Since then, the main rules have changed. Not just for the Necrons, but for every army.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed off the board, it was destroyed. Gone. Period.
Now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands off the board, they suffer a mishap and have a 1 in 3 chance of being destroyed.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed on an enemy unit, is was destroyed. Gone. Period.
But now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands on an enemy unit, they suffer a mishap.
And if they roll a 1 or 2 on the mishap table, they are destroyed.

Except for the Monolith. It has a special rule that says, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."
So it is not destroyed like other units. And what caused it to be destroyed? Suffering a mishap and rolling a 1 or 2 on the mishap table.

So every other unit in the game is destroyed, but what happens to the Monolith?
"Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."

Clean, pure and simple. You move any of the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith does not get destroyed in this instance. We see what occurs instead of the Monolith being destroyed.

And how far do we move the model(s) "..that are in the way..."? The minimum distance necessary. And as has been pointed out, models may be compelled or forced to move but when they do so (ie. tank shock) they are moved 1" away and maintaining unit coherency.

If the unit could be forced to move its models 4" in one direction and end up out of coherency, but 7" in another direction and maintain coherency, then guess what, 7" is the minimum distance necessary for them to be moved.

time wizard wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Uh, the rules don't state "If the Monolith is destroyed, move the models out of the way" it makes a blanket statement that the Monolith isn't destroyed when landing on enemy models (a reference to third and fourth edition rules) and that the enemy models are just moved out of the way. This is a similar rule to the Drop Pod which just stops short of enemy models instead of landing on them. No mishap role is made in that instance either.

First, the drop pod has a special rule that specifically says that if the scatter distance would cause the pod to land on friendly or enemy models, you reduce the scatter distance to avoid the models.
What happens if you choose to place the drop pod onto an enemy unit and it doesn't scatter? You don't reduce the scatter distance, you suffer a mishap.

Nope. You reduce the distance the Drop Pod deepstriked to avoid the obstacle. I was using the DP as an example of a rule similar the Monoliths so I'm not going to debate the DP rule here.

Second, the deep strike rule for the Monolith was written 2 editions of the main rules ago.
Since then, the main rules have changed. Not just for the Necrons, but for every army.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed off the board, it was destroyed. Gone. Period.
Now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands off the board, they suffer a mishap and have a 1 in 3 chance of being destroyed.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed on an enemy unit, is was destroyed. Gone. Period.

Agreed.

But now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands on an enemy unit, they suffer a mishap.

And if they roll a 1 or 2 on the mishap table, they are destroyed.

Except for the Monolith. It has a special rule that says, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."

Exactly. When the Monolith arrives near/on enemy models, it is not destroyed. There is no mishap for the Monolith, you just move the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith not being destroyed is just a characteristic of the Monolith not a condition of the rule. The rule doesn't state "If the Monolith is destroyed...." is just states "...it is not destroyed...". The former is a condition of the rule the latter is a characteristic of the model.

And how far do we move the model(s) "..that are in the way..."? The minimum distance necessary. And as has been pointed out, models may be compelled or forced to move but when they do so (ie. tank shock) they are moved 1" away and maintaining unit coherency.

If the unit could be forced to move its models 4" in one direction and end up out of coherency, but 7" in another direction and maintain coherency, then guess what, 7" is the minimum distance necessary for them to be moved.

Except the rules state the MODELS are moved a minimum distance away from the Monolith. It neither addresses the unit nor states coherency must be maintained. So, each MODEL is moved the minimum distance necessary to get out of the way of the Monolith which may put some MODELS out of unit coherency. Page 12 discusses that sometime a unit may lose unit coherency and addresses how to deal with such issues. This is one of those situations that may make take a unit out of coherency.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Exactly. When the Monolith arrives near/on enemy models, it is not destroyed. There is no mishap for the Monolith, you just move the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith not being destroyed is just a characteristic of the Monolith not a condition of the rule. The rule doesn't state "If the Monolith is destroyed...." is just states "...it is not destroyed...". The former is a condition of the rule the latter is a characteristic of the model.

Well, if you want to take the Monolith rule in complete isolation, then since it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, it would have to follow that if there are no enemy within 1" then it is destroyed.

But of course that's ridiculous.

The monolith rule is a cause and effect rule.

Under the old edition, if any unit landed within 1" of an enemy unit, it was destroyed.
Cause-land within 1" of enemy, effect-destroyed.

Except the Monolith would not be destroyed, you move the enemy models.
Cause-do not suffer a destroyed result, effect-move the enemy models.

Now under the 5th edition rules, we have a mishap table and still cause and effect.
If any unit lands on top or within 1" of an enemy unit it suffers a mishap.
Cause-land within 1" of enemy, effect-suffer a mishap.
There is nothing in the Necron codex, errata or FAQ that says the Monolith does not suffer a mishap, ergo, it suffers a mishap.

If any unit suffers a deep strike mishap and rolls a 1 or 2 it is destroyed.
Cause-suffer mishap roll 1 or 2, effect-destroyed.

Except the Monolith has a rule that says it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives.
Cause-do not suffer a destroyed result, effect-move the enemy models.

The cause and effect are exactly the same as in the past.
What has changed is what triggers the cause and effect.

This is applying the rules and the codex as written.
To do otherwise is either omitting or ignoring a portion of the rulebook.

time wizard wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Exactly. When the Monolith arrives near/on enemy models, it is not destroyed. There is no mishap for the Monolith, you just move the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith not being destroyed is just a characteristic of the Monolith not a condition of the rule. The rule doesn't state "If the Monolith is destroyed...." is just states "...it is not destroyed...". The former is a condition of the rule the latter is a characteristic of the model.

Well, if you want to take the Monolith rule in complete isolation, then since it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, it would have to follow that if there are no enemy within 1" then it is destroyed.

But of course that's ridiculous.

The monolith rule is a cause and effect rule.

Under the old edition, if any unit landed within 1" of an enemy unit, it was destroyed.
Cause-land within 1" of enemy, effect-destroyed.

Except the Monolith would not be destroyed, you move the enemy models.
Cause-do not suffer a destroyed result, effect-move the enemy models.

Now under the 5th edition rules, we have a mishap table and still cause and effect.
If any unit lands on top or within 1" of an enemy unit it suffers a mishap.

The Monolith rule states those enemy models are moved out of the way in those instances of a mishap. Because of it's ponderous nature, the Monolith is not destroyed by simply landing on/near an enemy model. This is an artifact intended for previous edition rules and the BRB FAQ tells us to ignore such (see the Army Specific question).

Also, I will point out, again, the current version of the INAT comes to the same conclusion: the Monolith does not mishap when landing on/near enemy models, just move the models out of the way (as per the Monolith rule).

TGA - stop missing the key word: MOVE

MOVE

MOVE

MOVE

Where are the rules that tell you how to move? In the BRB. And those same rules tell you to maintain coherency.

You cannot argue intent over a rule that did not exist when the monolith rules were written. Well, you could, but it would be laughable.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith rule states those enemy models are moved out of the way in those instances of a mishap.

No.
It.
Doesn't.

It never once references "mishap". if it did, I would agree with you. All it references is that the Monoltih is not destroyed. it never says it cannot be delayed. it never says it cannot be placed elsewhere by the opponent. Sure, those game mechanics were not in existence when the codex was written. And GW has had how long to FAQ those? And yet, they haven't. the only result that the Monolith is protected against is being destroyed, it does not have a blanket protection against all three types of mishap. While that may indeed be (and once was) GWs intent, that's not what the rules currently say.

As for the INAT, well, so they (IMO) got one wrong. Your point?

Y'all can stop arguing with TGA about this rule. He's been on the opposite side of raw since this topic first came up several several threads ago. He insists on reading the word 'Mishap' in the Monolith rules where it isn't printed. I'm beginning to believe he's actually colored the word into his codex with a giant crayon.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Because of it's ponderous nature, the Monolith is not destroyed by simply landing on/near an enemy model. This is an artifact intended for previous edition rules and the BRB FAQ tells us to ignore such (see the Army Specific question).

This one?
Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules)
that seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you
going to publish an errata to change them to
something else that does work?
A: No, 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.

Okay, so then by your logic, this FAW says not to use that section of the Monolith rules.

In which case if it lands on or within 1" of an enemy model it suffers a mishap and if you roll a 1 or 2 it is destroyed like any other model. Right?

Except the effect of not being destroyed is still relevant and is still a valid rule for the Monolith.

And it is not because of its ponderous nature - ponderous means it is a skimmer that only moves up to 6" a turn, it does not drift if shaken or stunned (3rd edition rule?) and it does not crash if immobilised (4th edition rule?).

It is becasue of its Deep Strike rule that it doesn't get destroyed like other models.

Not really. In the older editions simply arriving via deep strike within 1" of an enemy, ment the unit was destroyed. To which you would need premission to not be destroyed. Which is why it appears in the Monolith's rule.

Mishaps are easier to avoid thou. Since the rule states "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would ect". All you have to do is have a special rule that allows the model to be deployed that overrules what was causing the mishap. You don't actually need "Mishap" writen into the rule at all. It's better to have it writen but not required.

So the question really boils down to timing.

The first part of the monolith's "Deep Strike" special rule references a rule that no longer exist. Since no unit in the game is destroyed just because it deep struck within 1" of an enemy model. The second part clearly shows that models in the way of the monolith are moved.

Does the fact that the Monolith has a special rule that allows it to be deployed overide triggering a mishap???

There is only two answers, either it can be deployed or it cannot deployed. If it can be deployed because it's special rule then there is no mishap roll.

I feel that forcing a mishap roll to see if the model's special rule that would ignore the mishap roll altogether, is silly.

Lordhat wrote:Y'all can stop arguing with TGA about this rule. He's been on the opposite side of raw since this topic first came up several several threads ago. He insists on reading the word 'Mishap' in the Monolith rules where it isn't printed. I'm beginning to believe he's actually colored the word into his codex with a giant crayon.

No, I'm saying the Monolith has a rule that deals with landing on/near enemy models when deepstriking: move the enemy models out of the way. The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on/near enemy models in the fifth edition rules is moot.

Stonerhino wrote:I feel that forcing a mishap roll to see if the model's special rule that would ignore the mishap roll altogether, is silly.

What would you do if your Monolith scattered off the table?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Y'all can stop arguing with TGA about this rule. He's been on the opposite side of raw since this topic first came up several several threads ago. He insists on reading the word 'Mishap' in the Monolith rules where it isn't printed. I'm beginning to believe he's actually colored the word into his codex with a giant crayon.

No, I'm saying the Monolith has a rule that deals with landing on/near enemy models when deepstriking: move the enemy models out of the way. The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on/near enemy models in the fifth edition rules is moot.

Except it doesn't have any such rule. It has a rule saying:

"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........."

Notice the word "Instead"? It's part of what you keep ignoring. It means that the move enemy models clause is tied to the not destroyed clause in the preceding sentence. So unless there is a possibility of the Monolith being destroyed (which can only happen if you roll on the Mishap chart), then the move enemy models clause is not in play. I believe this also answers rhino's objections, but neither of you has been convinced the numerous other times this has come up and I truly don't expect either of you to change your minds now. But at least the OP now knows what the rules really say.

time wizard wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:I feel that forcing a mishap roll to see if the model's special rule that would ignore the mishap roll altogether, is silly.

What would you do if your Monolith scattered off the table?

Well since the monolith does not have a special rule that allows it to be deployed if it scatters off the table. It would mishap as normal.

I don't see how bringing up something that is unrelated even matter to the subject.

The point was that if you force a monolith to roll on the mishap table (For landing within 1" of an enemy) and it rolls a 1-2. Then it would not have to roll on the mishap table, because it has a special rule that allows it to be deployed in the first place. Or in other words roll to see if you have to roll. Which I find silly.

don_mondo wrote:Notice the word "Instead"? It's part of what you keep ignoring. It means that the move enemy models clause is tied to the not destroyed clause in the preceding sentence. So unless there is a possibility of the Monolith being destroyed (which can only happen if you roll on the Mishap chart), then the move enemy models clause is not in play. I believe this also answers rhino's objections, but neither of you has been convinced the numerous other times this has come up and I truly don't expect either of you to change your minds now. But at least the OP now knows what the rules really say.

The problem is that the phrase "Not destroyed" is tied to rule that no long exists. So the phrase "Not destroyed" means about as much as the phrase "Because of it's sheer mass" as far as the rules go.

What does matter is the fact that the monolith has a special rule that allows it to be deployed if it lands within 1" of enemies. Because it can be deployed there is no mishap roll. The landing within 1" of an enemy has nothing to do with mishaps untill after the unit cannot be deployed.

I have tryed many times to change your mind and appoarch this subject from different angles. But you have always refused to listen and default back to the same argument. So if you will not listen to me or others. Then you should try PMing Yakface and ask why the Inat FAQs are against you as well.

if the not destroyed is tied to a rule that no longer exists, well, then so is the ability to push models aside. You don't get to cherry pick which part of a rule you want to follow and ignore the rest of it.

And oddly enough, I don't agree with every ruling in the INAT either. Do you? 100%?

Stonerhino wrote:

time wizard wrote:
What would you do if your Monolith scattered off the table?

Well since the monolith does not have a special rule that allows it to be deployed if it scatters off the table. It would mishap as normal.

I find it interesting that you would say it would "mishap as normal".
I agree that it would. And when does it "mishap as normal"? This is found on page 95 of the main rulebook.
So if the Monolith would land off the table it would mishap, and if it landed in impassable terrain or on top of a friendly model it would mishap, but if it landed on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, suddenly it no longer mishaps?
So you ae going to use part of the mishap rule, the part you like, but not the entire rule?

Stonerhino wrote:I don't see how bringing up something that is unrelated even matter to the subject.

Suffering a mishap is not unrelated to the discussion. A few posts ago you said,

Stonerhino wrote:Mishaps are easier to avoid thou. Since the rule states "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would ect". All you have to do is have a special rule that allows the model to be deployed that overrules what was causing the mishap. You don't actually need "Mishap" writen into the rule at all. It's better to have it writen but not required.

The Monolith rule does not override the mishap at all. All it addresses is one of three possible results (destroyed, misplaced or delayed) of 4 potential mishaps.

Stonerhino wrote:The point was that if you force a monolith to roll on the mishap table (For landing within 1" of an enemy) and it rolls a 1-2. Then it would not have to roll on the mishap table, because it has a special rule that allows it to be deployed in the first place. Or in other words roll to see if you have to roll. Which I find silly.

You are putting the cart before the horse.
If the Monolith lands on top of or within 1" of an enemy unit, a mishap has occurred.
Now you roll on the mishap table.
If you roll 3 or 4, the Monolith is misplaced.
If you roll a 5 or 6, the Monolith goes back in reserve.

Now, if you roll a 1 or 2, the mishap table says the Monolith is destroyed.
But the Necron Codex has a rule in the Monolith entry that says the Monolith is not destroyed if it lands on top of or within 1" of an enemy unit, instead move the enemy unit the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith.
So the Monolith did in fact suffer a mishap and it was indeed made to suffer a destroyed result.
But again, it has a special rule to override the specific damage of the destroyed result and tells you what to do INSTEAD.

Stonerhino wrote:Then you should try PMing Yakface and ask why the Inat FAQs are against you as well.

I shall. I'll give him a link to my post and see what he says.

Honestly I'm more interested in the question I asked than the one that's currently being debated. I believe that RaW, without the INAT FAQ, time wizard is right. However, I have still not seen a convincing answer to the actual questions I asked. If everyone doesn't mind, the discussion you're having has been debated before, and is generally unrelated to the problem I posed.

Kitzz wrote:However, I have still not seen a convincing answer to the actual questions I asked.

Sorry Kitzz, you're absolutely correct!

In answer to that, there is no specific mechanic listed or referred to in the Monolith rule that addresses exactly how to move the models that would end up underneath it.

So we would have to look elsewhere to see if there is a similar situation and a rule that covers how to resolve it.

In your picture, if the Monolith were not landing on the models in question, but tank shocking them, then the rule on page 68 is very clear.

"If some models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position...these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving as least 1" between them ane the vehicle and maintaining unit coherency."

Even units that emergency disembark from a transport vehicle must disembark within coherency.

It seems logical that when a unit is being forced to move, that compulsory movement must still maintain unit coherency.

It's at times like this when I get frustrated by things I read in the rulebook. Of course the relevant part of the rulebook would probably be the "Random and Compulsory Movement" section, which says that those types of movement will be discussed later...which they never are.

The biggest issue here is that using the INAT ruling, you can significantly mess with certain types of units by breaking their coherency and forcing them to move back together.

On the other hand, here's something even more interesting to think about: Which player controls the movement? If it's the non-Necron player, they might be getting a free 6" move with a good part of their squad. If it's the Necron player, there's the coherency issue.

Either ruling can have large implications, especially if playing by the INAT rules.

time wizard wrote:It seems logical that when a unit is being forced to move, that compulsory movement must still maintain unit coherency.

This is also supported by the ruling of Lash Demon Princes.

Edit: From the CSM GW FAQ (emphasis mine):

Q. Can you use Lash of Submission to move models
around within a unit and re-arrange them? Can models
be moved out of unit coherency? Can a unit be moved
out of combat? If a unit is moved into dangerous
terrain, do they have to test? If jump infantry are
moved, are they assumed to be using their packs or
walking? Can a unit be shoved right off the table, or
into impassable terrain?

A. The move created by this power is executed exactly
like a normal move, except that it’s not slowed by
difficult terrain. It follows that, for example:
• the 2D6" distance rolled is the unit’s maximum
move, as normal, and models in the unit can move up to
that distance or less.
• models cannot be moved out of coherency.
• units cannot be moved out of combat.
• dangerous terrain tests must be taken as
normal.
• jump infantry may choose to move either with
their packs or on foot (moving player’s choice).
• units cannot enter impassable terrain, leave the
table or be moved closer than 1" to enemy models.

You're told to move them. The only rules you have which tell you how models move tells youy they must maintain coherency

Doesn't the monolith rule say you move them "the minimum distance necessary to make room for the monolith"? meaning you can't move 5" if 2" will do. And while you still have to maintain coherency it is entirely possible to move every model a different distance but still maintain the "minimum distance moved" rule.

Kevin949 wrote:Doesn't the monolith rule say you move them "the minimum distance necessary to make room for the monolith"? meaning you can't move 5" if 2" will do. And while you still have to maintain coherency it is entirely possible to move every model a different distance but still maintain the "minimum distance moved" rule.

Of course, but if one model was 2" from 1 side and another was 2" from another side, you wouldn't move them in 2 different directions to make room for the Monolith leaving them 8" apart.

You would move the first one 3" (2" to get out from under the Monolith plus 1" to be out of base contact) and then move the other 5" (4" to get out from under and 1" to be out of base contact with the Monolith).

This would be moving each model the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith in the first place.

don_mondo wrote:if the not destroyed is tied to a rule that no longer exists, well, then so is the ability to push models aside. You don't get to cherry pick which part of a rule you want to follow and ignore the rest of it.

What cherry picking? I'm fully embracing the RAW: The codex states the Monolith is not destroyed when it lands on/near enemy models. (Sweet!! You rock Monolith!!) Instead, the enemy models are moved out of the way. Note, the rules doesn't state "if the monolith is destroyed" just that it's not destroyed. The "not destroyed" part of the rule is now moot and has become descriptive narrative much like the Monolith being ponderous.

The Monolith does not have a special rule that deals with landing off the table so it would mishap per the deepstrike rule.

And oddly enough, I don't agree with every ruling in the INAT either. Do you? 100%?

No, I don't agree with every ruling of the INAT. However, I do respect that others have thought long and hard about the various rules and have formed an intelligent decision. I'm not saying I'm right because the INAT says I'm right, I'm saying others have looked at this issue and have come to the same conclusion I have.

The Monolith Mishaps as normal.

IF it is destroyed it instead moves models out of the way.

Otherwise you are cherry picking when to mishap and when not to. You have NO BLANKET EXEMPTION from mishap. None.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Monolith Mishaps as normal.

IF it is destroyed it instead moves models out of the way.

The Monolith rule does NOT that "if" the Monolith is destroyed move the models, it states the Monolith is not destroyed AND move the models.

No, it really doesnt. It says that INSTEAD OF being destroyed, it moves models.
And the only way it can be destroyed is via mishapping. You are still ignoring "mishap" with absolutely no rules basis, no whatsoever, for doing so.

time wizard wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Doesn't the monolith rule say you move them "the minimum distance necessary to make room for the monolith"? meaning you can't move 5" if 2" will do. And while you still have to maintain coherency it is entirely possible to move every model a different distance but still maintain the "minimum distance moved" rule.

Of course, but if one model was 2" from 1 side and another was 2" from another side, you wouldn't move them in 2 different directions to make room for the Monolith leaving them 8" apart.

You would move the first one 3" (2" to get out from under the Monolith plus 1" to be out of base contact) and then move the other 5" (4" to get out from under and 1" to be out of base contact with the Monolith).

This would be moving each model the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith in the first place.

I'm not disputing the coherency bit.

I notice now that my quoted text didn't show up for some reason. I was actually responding to kitzz's post about who gets to move the models out of the way and them getting a "free" 6 inch move. Which isn't the case.

Kevin949 wrote:
I notice now that my quoted text didn't show up for some reason. I was actually responding to kitzz's post about who gets to move the models out of the way and them getting a "free" 6 inch move. Which isn't the case.

I agree that being forced to move is not a "free" move since you can easily end up in a position or location that is very bad for your unit in particular and you battle plan in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it really doesnt. It says that INSTEAD OF being destroyed, it moves models.
And the only way it can be destroyed is via mishapping. You are still ignoring "mishap" with absolutely no rules basis, no whatsoever, for doing so.

I'm not ignoring any rules. The models the Monolith would have landed on or near are moved out of the way because the Monolith's rules state such.

Regardless, this argument is just going in circles. Discuss it with your Necron opponent before the game. On my tables, the Monolith doesn't mishap in such situations.

Yes, you are ignoring rules: you are deciding to ignore mishap. You have no reason to ignore mishap, as the monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models - it rolls mishap, and then AFTER it does this it is only destroyed on a 1 or 2

Yes, this is going round in circles: one side has rules, the other doesnt.

Wow, massive RAW discussion. Why doesn't everyone just pay RAI? And i personally think the models can be moved out of coherency Kitzz, cause it says to move the minimum distance required to get out of the monolith's way. If it's equidistant, than the controlling player chooses, but if it isn't it should be obvious. Shortest, most direct INDIVIDUAL move. Sorry for the capitals, can't remember how to make it bold...

Sabet - nice opinion, lacks rules.

You move. The only way ou can move is to use the rules for movement, and those require you to maintain coherency

fair enough, but that's how i and my FLGS play it. was just putting another opinion out there. course, were not very strict, and most of the time i just tell my opponent to move his models out of the way but only in friendly games. in anything more important thats how my FLGS does it.

EDIT: I'm the necron player at my store.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you are ignoring rules: you are deciding to ignore mishap. You have no reason to ignore mishap, as the monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models - it rolls mishap, and then AFTER it does this it is only destroyed on a 1 or 2

Yes, this is going round in circles: one side has rules, the other doesnt.

No, I'm not ignoring the rules. I've stated several times why I'm not ignoring the rules. We both agree the Monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models (as you just stated). However, it's at this point we diverge. You state the model mishaps and if the result is "destroyed" the Monolith's rule kicks in. I state the Monolith's rules kicks in prior to mishapping thus the enemy is moved out of the way. This is what's EXACTLY stated in the codex.

No, you are most definitely ignoring mishap. You must be, becauae the monoliths rules have no mention of "instead of rolling for mishap"

So the sequence goes:

1) mono scatters to within 1" of the enemy. Nothing happens to the monlith at this point, so the monolith rule about moving them cannot kick in
2) you roll mishap <-this is the bit you are ignoring, with absolutely no rules backing. noone whatsoever
3) if you rolla destroyed result the monolith rule kicks in

Your sequence is simply 1) mono lands near enemy 2) you dont destroy it and you move the models out the way, yet you have no reason to "not destroy" the monolith, as you're ignoring the only rule that actuallyt DOES destroy the monolith.

So yes, of course you are ignoring rules, you are stating that INSTEAD of rolling mishap, which is the only way the mono can be destroyed, you skip straight ahead to assuming the monolith would be destroyed - because only if the monolith would be destroyed could you move models out of the way.

Your way has no rules backing. Absolutely none, and it never will

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you are most definitely ignoring mishap. You must be, becauae the monoliths rules have no mention of "instead of rolling for mishap"

So the sequence goes:

1) mono scatters to within 1" of the enemy. Nothing happens to the monlith at this point, so the monolith rule about moving them cannot kick in

What? The rules explicitly state two things when the Monolith lands near the enemy: the Monolith is not destroyed and move the enemy. The rule doesn't state IF the Monolith is destroyed move the models, just the monolith isn't destroyed and the enemy models are moved.

Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrived. - Codex: Necron, page 21

This is a statement of fact not a condition. No "if the Monolith is destroyed..." or other such nonsense. Granted, this fact has more relevance in previous editions of the rules, it is just a fact none the less.

Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make the space for the Monolith. - Codex: Necron, page 21

So, instead of being destroyed when arriving, the offending models are moved out of the way of the Monolith. Again, this is different than saying "IF the Monolith is destroyed...." Subtle, but distinctive.

So, why arent you rolling mishap?

Please show the RULE that means you dont roll mishap. Waiting.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you are ignoring rules: you are deciding to ignore mishap. You have no reason to ignore mishap, as the monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models - it rolls mishap, and then AFTER it does this it is only destroyed on a 1 or 2

Yes, this is going round in circles: one side has rules, the other doesnt.

No, I'm not ignoring the rules. I've stated several times why I'm not ignoring the rules. We both agree the Monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models (as you just stated). However, it's at this point we diverge. You state the model mishaps and if the result is "destroyed" the Monolith's rule kicks in. I state the Monolith's rules kicks in prior to mishapping thus the enemy is moved out of the way. This is what's EXACTLY stated in the codex.

You've stated it, but you are indeed ignoring rules, both rulebook and codex. You also continue to misquote the Monolith rule. Nothing in the codex states that you ignore mishaps. So no, that's not "exactly" what is stated in the codex. I've posted the real text a couple of times already, and yet you persist in ignoring the rules in favor of your own interpretation of what it doesn't say.

One: It's not my own interpretation. I am not alone in this interpretation. As I've pointed out, the INAT also interprets the rules the same way.

Two: I don't know of any other way to detail that not being destroyed is NOT a condition of the Monolith rules, it is a characteristic of the Monolith.

Three: Being directly destroyed by landing near the enemy is an artifact of previous rules. The BRB FAQ states when such codex rules exists to ignore them.

Four: The Monolith rules states what to do when the Monolith lands near enemy models, move the models.

There is nothing left to say. You believe how you believe and I as such.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Three: Being directly destroyed by landing near the enemy is an artifact of previous rules. The BRB FAQ states when such codex rules exists to ignore them.

Okay, that's good. We'll ignore the rule that when the monolith lands within 1" of enemy models it is not destroyed.

Which leaves us using the mishap rule and table, so if the Monolith lands 1" from an enemy unit, it suffers a mishap and if it rolls a 1 or 2, it is destroyed.

That works.

As above: you cannot have it both ways. If you're ignoring the "it is not destroyed" line, then when you roll mishap it is destroyed.

You are still ignoring mishap, and you dont have a rule allowing you to ignore mishap. Additionally moving models out of the way IS A CONDITION of the first rule - INSTEAD tells you this. So, if you are ignoring the first bit (monolith isnt destroyed) you CANNOT ever ever ever activate the second bit.

The monolith rule firmly states when it arrives it is not destroyed and the offending enemy models are moved out of the way.

Instead is NOT a condition, not even remotely. The is NO condition state used within the Monolith Deep Strike rule just factual statements. The fact the Monolith does is not destroyed when it arrives is moot.

TheGreatAvatar wrote: The fact the Monolith does is not destroyed when it arrives is moot.

The fact that the Monolith is not destroyed if there are enemy models in the way is the key component.

What you keep ignoring is, what would make the Monolith be destroyed?

The answer to that has been stated over and over.

In order for the Monolith rule to work the way you want, GW could very easily issue an errata that says;

In the Monolith deep strike rule (page 21) change "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." to "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it does not suffer a mishap if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."

But guess what? No such errata was ever made. So instead of being destroyed like every other model in the game at the time the rule was written, the Monolith now suffers a mishap, like every other model in the game.

But unlike every other model in the game, if the Monolith rolls a 1 or 2 on the mishap table, then we INSTEAD move the enemy models out of the way.

But this advantage isn't enough for you. You want to have your mishap and ignore it too. But that's not how the Monolith rule works.

And FWIW, I play Necrons from time to time too, and I don't play the Monolith like you propose.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The monolith rule firmly states when it arrives it is not destroyed and the offending enemy models are moved out of the way.

Instead is NOT a condition, not even remotely. The is NO condition state used within the Monolith Deep Strike rule just factual statements. The fact the Monolith does is not destroyed when it arrives is moot.

"Instead" is tying the latter to thge former - a condition. "Instead" of being destroyed you move models out of the way. The monolith is only destroyed on a 1 or 2 on the mishap chart. On any other result the monolith is not destroyed, therefore you do not move models out of the way - you havent fulfilled the first condition, thereofre the INSTEAD cannot take place.

RULE that says you ignore mishap. Or concede.

hasn't this already been discussed in another thread?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Instead is NOT a condition, not even remotely.

Ummm, yes, it is. Instead, you move models out of the way. Instead of what? So you look at the previous sentence and there's the answer. Instead of being destroyed.

But truthfully, you know all this and just refuse to acknowledge it.

So kitzz, got any more questions?

I suggest y'all take up the INAT ruling then.

Why would we? We can disagree with INAT rulings, showing why they are wrong, without having to "take anytthing up" with them.

I assume this means you concede? You havent shown a rule exempting you from mishap, so you must surely concede.

I'm sure Yak is well aware of the disagreement with that particular ruling. He does read these forums on occasion..................... They may have ruled it based on what they believe the 'intent' is or there may have been enpugh members of the group that believe as you do (incorrectly, IMO) to outvote those that wanted to do it per the rules. Or whatever. Only the INAT group can tell us why they answered it that way. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the INAT says, it's a tournament FAQ for a specific event and only applies to that event unless agreed to.

don_mondo wrote:I'm sure Yak is well aware of the disagreement with that particular ruling. He does read these forums on occasion..................... They may have ruled it based on what they believe the 'intent' is or there may have been enpugh members of the group that believe as you do (incorrectly, IMO) to outvote those that wanted to do it per the rules. Or whatever. Only the INAT group can tell us why they answered it that way. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the INAT says, it's a tournament FAQ for a specific event and only applies to that event unless agreed to.

Also, Inat often rules according to 'how it's played' instead of RAW, when the former is more popular than the latter.

I apologize, I was on vacation at Games Day Chicago. It's nice to clear the head and take a road trip once in a while. Let's get this thread back on track! YES I have more questions (from said trip) including some very interesting ones that are system-wide and not just Necron in origin.

First off, heading back to the Deceiver, can he use Deceive in the assault phase if he is in combat?

I thought Deceive was used in the shooting phase?

It is used in the Shooting phase. Plus it has a range, equires LOS and can't be used on a unit in close combat.
Sounds like a shooting attack to me.

Excpet it isnt; you can still run and use it.

You still GET a shooting phase for a unit locked in combat, so as long as you can see the unit (no turning him around, he's engaged) you could target it.

There is nothing explicit in the rules or and FAQ that says decieve is or is not a shooting attack.
I said that since it has range and requires LOS it sounds like a shooting attack.
If it is, it couldn't be used when the Deceiver was engaged in close combat.

Except it ISNT a shooting attack; nothing defines it as such.

If that's the case, he could use it even if engaged in combat, but it would have to be used in the shooting phase.
It also could not be used on the unit the deceiver was in close combat with.

Sorry, don't know why I said the assault phase. Yes, I meant the shooting phase.

Next question:

Does the Deceiver have to actually ignore an assault move to use Dread? For example, can he use the ability when he is 8” away from all other models in the assault phase?

The rule says it has can't be in close combat and it uses Dread instead off making an assault move, so yes it ignores assault.

He can use the abitlity on one unit up to 24" away so where did the 8" come from?

The issue here is what an "assault move" is. The issue is that he is not in range to assault anything if he is 8" away from the nearest unit.

You don't have to be in "assault range" to make an "assault move".
For example, I am a distance from your unit. I announce that I will assault.
I'm a really bad judge of distance, and when I measure I find I am 7 1/2 inches away.
I am out of range and the assault fails. Did not prevent me from making an assault move.

Or you are 6" away but in diffficult terrain. I roll a 5 and 4. I can't get into assault, I didn't roll high enough so my assault fails.
I still made an assault move, right?

The only 2 limitations on Dread that I see is that the deceiver can't be in close combat, and if it uses dread it is instead of assaulting an enemy unit.

Worded wierd, but not that unclear.

time wizard wrote:You don't have to be in "assault range" to make an "assault move".

To be a little clearer, you don't have to be in assault range to do something instead of making an assault move...

If you don't make an assault move, you can use Dread. If you're out of assault range anyway that's a bit of a no-brainer choice really.


I would disagree that an assault move happened if the assault failed, since if the assault failed, nobody moved. An assault was declared, but no assault moves occurred.

In this instance, though, it simply doesn't matter. Dread doesn't care why you didn't make an assault move... just that you didn't.

Okiedokie, pretty much what I was thinking. Good by me, so I'll toss the next one up there.

Nightmare Shroud:
A) Can it be used by the lord during combat?
B) What are “all normal exceptions?” Do they include just Fearless units? Stubborn units? i.e. Does it only apply to units that specifically have an ability that says they “never fall back?”
C) If the lord has no shooting weapon, can he still use the Nightmare Shroud?

Kitzz wrote:
Nightmare Shroud:
A) Can it be used by the lord during combat?

Codex says it can be activated in the shooting phase so it can't be uesd in the assault phase.

Kitzz wrote:B) What are “all normal exceptions?” Do they include just Fearless units? Stubborn units? i.e. Does it only apply to units that specifically have an ability that says they “never fall back?”

I think you answered this yourself! Fearless units don't take morale checks and never fall back. So they would not be affected.

Kitzz wrote:C) If the lord has no shooting weapon, can he still use the Nightmare Shroud?

Of course, it's a piece of wargear.
Just like running, you don't have to have a weapon to run, you just run instead of firing a weapon.

Let me rephrase the first question:

Can a Lord who is currently locked in assault use the Nightmare Shroud during the shooting phase?

No, because you can't shoot during the shooting phase if engaged in CC and the wargear does not say you can do it while in CC unlike the veil of darkness which does. If you can't shoot for any reason, typically you can't do other actions that are "instead of shooting".

On a related note, why did the INAT FAQ decide to go the other way with this phrasing in regards to the WWP? It might assist the discussion if we could find out.

Since no one wants to answer, might as well move on to the next question:

Do wraiths get +1 attack for having two close combat weapons?

Nope

Extra Letters.

sadly they only have 1 close combat weapon. just like flayed ones and scarabs... :(

Kitzz wrote:Since no one wants to answer, might as well move on to the next question:

Do wraiths get +1 attack for having two close combat weapons?

No, as they dont have 2 CCW. Been asked a million times, the answer is always "NO"