Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You keep on missing the mishap chart.

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

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

grotblaster wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

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

The step before that matters more.

What is required to destroy a deepstriking unit?

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

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

Mishap requires the roll to be destroyed.

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

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

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

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

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

You say,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say,

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

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

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

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

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

time wizard wrote:

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

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

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

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

grotblaster wrote:

time wizard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

time wizard wrote:

grotblaster wrote:

time wizard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rule says

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

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


So here are your options.

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

edited wrote that unclearly

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

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

It really is just that simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

The rule says

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

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

So here are your options.

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

OR

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

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

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

I see only RAW support for option 1.

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

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

grotblaster wrote:

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

I see only RAW support for option 1.

If you go this route. . .

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

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

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

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

Melchiour wrote:

grotblaster wrote:

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

I see only RAW support for option 1.

If you go this route. . .

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

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

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

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

edit:spelling

I agree with Timewizard, et al.

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

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

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

edit:spelling

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

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

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Timewizard, et al.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rules do not back them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer to which is of course they do.