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.

I am really amazed at the wording pointed out. Its true: the only exception listed is "destroyed" not the other results. So.... Monolith arrives. Roll die for result. On "destroyed" run out of the way in terror as the awesomeness that is the Monolith arrives!

Also, I'm becoming convinced:
1) Monolith says its landing in your troops.
2) Roll on table and discover Monolith IS landing in your troops.
3) Move troops out of way.
4) Monolith sets itself down.

Thus, if you have enough troops you could block exits, but this will be unlikely.

Thanks for the help! Obviously, store rulings can over ride all of this... but it seems clear to me!

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

I didn't have my codex on me because i'm out of town, but this kind of word play is starting to get to be really bad on Dakka, I'm not a hardcore RAW player, I believe RAI exists for a reason, this codex was written before there was a mishap table, that's why destroyed is only mentioned. Do we really need to be arguing about such an obvious RAI fix? I don't think a player is really going to make you deep strike mishap, ever, unless for some reason they read this thread, which as I said is only working to break a broken army just a little more.

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

This is an exaggeration, also, how can you mishap if there's no enemies or friendly model within 1 inch? The "Destroyed" portion of the monolith rules can just be ignored, and instead just base it on the fact it's not within 1 inch of anything that could destroy it in the first place. Last time I checked, two models can't share the same space.

So, monolith goes to land, models move to make room moving outside of one inch, monolith sets down on the ground. The monolith can't fully arrive on the table until it's actually placed there. Otherwise it would be floating in space somewhere.

You're right. It's not complicated.

You're right, it wasn't until rule lawyering die hard RAW players come to post about things that don't need to be fixed, or have an obvious RAI solution.

I daresay you're the one who's reading the codex incorrectly. The BGB tells us how DS works, The codex merely tells us how to modify it. Saying that the BGB "doesn't even enter into the Monolith's deep strike 'formation'" is a bit ludicrous. Without the BGB we wouldn't even know what Deep Strike is.

Well, mishap didn't even exist, so it's a bit ludicrous that you're going to tell me that my army, that already has problems in tournament play, has to roll on the deep strike table.

So in the end, you play it the way you want, but don't get pissed if no one agrees with you. Also, I know plenty enough on having an intelligent debate, just because I don't completely agree with RAW, doesn't mean I can't have an intelligent debate. Thanks though.

Kreedos wrote:

So, monolith goes to land, models move to make room moving outside of one inch, monolith sets down on the ground. The monolith can't fully arrive on the table until it's actually placed there. Otherwise it would be floating in space somewhere.

That order is wrong

Codex: Necrons 2nd printing, pg. 21 wrote: wrote:

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

you first: determine arrival
second: determine destroyed result(by scatter, or now by mishap)
third: move models out of the way(if destroyed result,(by mishap or scatter))

I doubt that most people in friendly games would disagree about the obvious RAI in this situation. It is important to raise the issue when it comes to tournament play and discussion, however.

Anyone who reads this post is now aware of an issue that really needs to be fixed, and which their opponents might bring up at more intense levels of play.

That aside, I think RAW has its importance in normal wargaming. I think it is unfair of a necron player, for example, to be able to take advantage of the new mixed toughness rules with Tomb Spyders, and the new reserve rules with Warriors, without having to also deal with setbacks left over from a fairly ancient codex. Inquisitorial armies still have open-topped rhinos and templars have non-assault landraiders, and I've yet to see someone disagree in-game about things like that.

Personally, I ask in advance about this particular situation whenever I choose to deepstrike a monolith, for clarity and balance. I've only had one game thus far where an opponent absolutely refused to let me deepstrike my monolith without rolling mishap, and I daresay it was one of the most frustrating games I've played in recent memory.

No one is saying that they utilize this rule as some sort of crutch when playing against necrons; I believe they have universally said that YMMV, which I believe is the right call in this case.

what is the RAI again?

Rules As Intended

Kreedos wrote:
Do we really need to be arguing about such an obvious RAI fix?

I guess we do. I believe the fact that this wasn't addressed in either FAQ nor Errata means that the developers intended the monolith to work exactly as the rules say. I've pointed out what the rules say.

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

This is an exaggeration, also, how can you mishap if there's no enemies or friendly model within 1 inch?

You can't. However, the rules don't say that a Monolith can't ever wind up within 1" of an enemy model while deepstriking. To the contrary they tell us what to do if this happens. Wierd.

You're right. It's not complicated.

You're right, it wasn't until rule lawyering die hard RAW players come to post about things that don't need to be fixed, or have an obvious RAI solution.

I'm anything but a die hard RAW player. As a matter of fact I'm all for house ruling situations when the rules are not clear. However, I don't believe this is one of those times. As stated earlier, quite a few codexes got the shaft from the new ruleset, including the Necrons. Just because you don't want the rules to work this way, doesn't mean they don't. If you and your opponents agree to play it differently to the RAW, then that's fine. Just don't get mad if you come to a RAW discussion forum and your houserules aren't accepted.

I daresay you're the one who's reading the codex incorrectly. The BGB tells us how DS works, The codex merely tells us how to modify it. Saying that the BGB "doesn't even enter into the Monolith's deep strike 'formation'" is a bit ludicrous. Without the BGB we wouldn't even know what Deep Strike is.

Well, mishap didn't even exist, so it's a bit ludicrous that you're going to tell me that my army, that already has problems in tournament play, has to roll on the deep strike table.

When you come to a RAW forum and ask about it, I will tell you exactly that. Escpecially when the RAW works, and doesn't actually hurt you. Your Monolith still can't be destroyed by enemy units, merely delayed or misplaced. Once again, GW have had ample time to errata the Monolith, and have not done so. Without a direct line to Andy Chambers, Pete Haines, Graham McNeill, Phil Kelly, or Andy Hoare, we must assume that RAW is exactly how it is supposed to work.

So in the end, you play it the way you want, but don't get pissed if no one agrees with you. Also, I know plenty enough on having an intelligent debate, just because I don't completely agree with RAW, doesn't mean I can't have an intelligent debate. Thanks though.

I say the same to you. Have fun playing, and don't get mad if you do run across somebody who wants to play it differently, especially when you can't point out a rule that supports your position.

Okay, first let me lead of by saying that I am a necron player. Let me second that by saying that I am a serious RAW player. You might have heard of me, I'm TFG. lol, but seriously....

Just because rules used to behave a certain way does not mean you can beat everyone overhead with the "law of original intention' now that 5th is around.

The Deepstrike table is real and its here.
Now i'm going to drop a bomb on you all and I'm certain you will hate my soul and curse me to chaos for it.
Here goes.

Necron Codex p. 21 DEEPSTRIKE
"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy [units] within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance [1"+] necessary to make space for the monolith"

RULEBOOK- Deep Strike Mishapsp.95
"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 OR [ notice not AND/OR] within 1" of an enemy model, something must have gone wrong"

Okay here it is folks.... not only is this important for monoliths, but also that curious Nid' unit which can deepstrike theoretically okay "within 1"".

WITHIN ONE INCH OF is NOT I repeat NOT THE SAME AS ON TOP ON. This is supported by the fact that you can land within one inch of a friendly and be okay--do the same with an enemy and you're screwed. The on top of just happens to be the same for enemy and friendly--doom.

(Proceed with screaming)

Thus,

when monoliths deepstrike under 5th (sorry guys its here, its... kind of queer... and it's not going ...anywhere?) their position is as such.

Choose a spot not within one in of enemy or on impassible terrain.

Make with the scatter.

If you land on impassible, mishap--no mitigating factors
If you land in difficult, take the test ( don't roll that one)

If you land WITHIN 1" roll the mishap table--sorry guys it's reality--- on a 1,2 you're okay and the other guys gotta vamoosh. on the others... well it is what it is.

If you land ON TOP OF... well you're screwed. That simple. Hate it all you may, but the on top of is on top and within 1" is within 1". If it was other wise the rule would read:

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

Some supporting evidence for this comes from the space marine drop pod which takes pains to specifically mention landing on top or or within 1".

Will I admit that it's a failing of an older codex? You betcha. Will I instantly 'update' the rules myself to account for what would be considered a gross oversight in 5th? Nope.

RAW is RAW is pain.

Commence with the death threats.

p.s.--all I'm saying is that i'd bust nuts at tournament- in friendly play I'd say why not guys, let's have a SWELL game.

I find it absolutely absurd that a troubled army such as Necrons is further handicapped by just a trivial matter. The space marines or eldar or wheover is fighting sees this GIGANTIC tank slowly coming down from the sky.
In the sport of the game - anyone including a fearless unit would probably react as "Oh no, some gigantic thing is landing on my head! Move out of the way!"

I seriously doubt the monolith would be woried if it scatters onto something that can go squish. Does anyone have to get out of the way if the walk near a big? You are totally capable of stepping on it with no problem. Think of it that way. I understand the rules of the Deepstrike Mishap - but come on - think of the logic and sport of it. RAW are intended to be for the sport of the game. Don't be a tool and ruin a fun game because of some lawyer move and focus on one part of the rules that only benefits you.

So this is what you are saying. If one dude, just one meaningless IG troop falling back or some sniper who has gone to ground is just sitting on the board...if you land on it by accident (not placing the model on the top of the unit but scattering onto it). You mean to tell me that you can either get out of the way with a 1 or a 2, make me go away and wait for another reserve roll and potentially ruining it by it not coming out of reserve in time, or you can pick where i put my 235 point deep striking model? No thanks, ill never play with you.

Ruining the game is not fun....

What I'm saying is yes-- if you LAND ON TOP OF HIM the monolith has to roll mishap and take its medicine.

BUT... this is only the most catastrophic, nut-busting, RAW view. In fun play I'd say-- hey folks, RAI is pretty obvious here, so lets give it to em.

Stores can also clearly state-- Here Necrons do X

In tourney however, where I'm putting $$$ on the line, I'd be TFG.

What I would like to see is just a simple one-sentence Errata for the monolith * COME ON GW ONE #@$#@$ SENTENCE!*

"When the monolith deepstrikes it ignores any models underneath or within 1" of it for the purposes of deepstrike mishap"

then they can staple on the 1" move over thing.

So you are saying that since "on top of" will always be within 1" it must say "and"?

Brilliant.

It does however, contradict your actual suggestion for wording.

Or did I miss something again?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall early in the BGB that two models may not be placed on top of each other, and that in doing so the models underneath are classified as impassable terrain.

I see the RAW, but against necron players I don't plan on making them roll on the mishap table.

vipcaniac wrote:I find it absolutely absurd that a troubled army such as Necrons is further handicapped by just a trivial matter. The space marines or eldar or wheover is fighting sees this GIGANTIC tank slowly coming down from the sky.
In the sport of the game - anyone including a fearless unit would probably react as "Oh no, some gigantic thing is landing on my head! Move out of the way!"

I seriously doubt the monolith would be woried if it scatters onto something that can go squish. Does anyone have to get out of the way if the walk near a big? You are totally capable of stepping on it with no problem. Think of it that way. I understand the rules of the Deepstrike Mishap - but come on - think of the logic and sport of it. RAW are intended to be for the sport of the game. Don't be a tool and ruin a fun game because of some lawyer move and focus on one part of the rules that only benefits you.

So this is what you are saying. If one dude, just one meaningless IG troop falling back or some sniper who has gone to ground is just sitting on the board...if you land on it by accident (not placing the model on the top of the unit but scattering onto it). You mean to tell me that you can either get out of the way with a 1 or a 2, make me go away and wait for another reserve roll and potentially ruining it by it not coming out of reserve in time, or you can pick where i put my 235 point deep striking model? No thanks, ill never play with you.

Ruining the game is not fun....

So your argument fails twice. First, fluff arguments carry no weight in this forum. Second, you got the fluff wrong. Monoliths teleport onto the battlefield, they don't drop from the sky, slowly or otherwise.

So what if the rules work against the Necrons? They work against the Tyranids too. I don't hear Nid players saying that VC's should be able to kill closed top vehicles with a glancing hit from a VC, even though that's how it worked in 4th. Things change from edition to edition. If something changes for the worse because of a change in the main rules, and the Devs intend for it to remain the way it was, they errata or FAQ it. So far this hasn't been done with the Monolith and DS.

paidinfull wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall early in the BGB that two models may not be placed on top of each other, and that in doing so the models underneath are classified as impassable terrain.

I see the RAW, but against necron players I don't plan on making them roll on the mishap table.

You are wrong.

The ruins rules, for example, show ways to have models above other models. Valkyries and flyers are other examples that do not require terrain.

What it says is that "A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or its hull) . . . To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

An amazingly redundant bit of text, I daresay. It has been said before that to illegally place a model using that as a guideline is almost impossible.

Just to nit-pick.

shrug

I don't understand what the probem here is with the monolith deep striking. It never does land on anything as they must mve out of it's way. As with moving anything in the game what you move must not be within an inch of an enemy model. So if there is any question as to something being destroyed by a monolith deep striking and scattering onto a unit, then the unit MOVING out of the way is the unit destoryed.

I'm one to think that neither the unit moving or the monolith is destroyed but if you feel like ruining the game for you and your necron opponent then feel free to argue this point with him/her. Otherwise accept just another poorly worded GW codex and enjoy.

augustus5 wrote:I don't understand what the probem here is with the monolith deep striking. It never does land on anything as they must mve out of it's way. As with moving anything in the game what you move must not be within an inch of an enemy model. So if there is any question as to something being destroyed by a monolith deep striking and scattering onto a unit, then the unit MOVING out of the way is the unit destoryed.

I'm one to think that neither the unit moving or the monolith is destroyed but if you feel like ruining the game for you and your necron opponent then feel free to argue this point with him/her. Otherwise accept just another poorly worded GW codex and enjoy.

sigh

augustus5 wrote:I don't understand what the probem here is with the monolith deep striking. It never does land on anything as they must mve out of it's way. As with moving anything in the game what you move must not be within an inch of an enemy model. So if there is any question as to something being destroyed by a monolith deep striking and scattering onto a unit, then the unit MOVING out of the way is the unit destoryed.

I'm one to think that neither the unit moving or the monolith is destroyed but if you feel like ruining the game for you and your necron opponent then feel free to argue this point with him/her. Otherwise accept just another poorly worded GW codex and enjoy.

You are correct in thinking that Neither the Monolith nor the unit get destroyed. That is not the debate. The debate is whether the Monolith has to roll on the Mishap chart, since it's rules only cover being destroyed, not delayed or misdirected.

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

So, the rules in order of occurance:

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

yea, i guess thats RAW .... but its terribly TFGish, and if they keep the intent the same when/if necrons get a new dex you know theyll just put they ignore the mishap table as thats the 100% OBVIOUS intention of the entire rule. If there was a mishap table back when the dex came out they would have had the clause to ignore it.

Eitherway like earlier posters have said congrats on breaking a broken army even more .

No one is arguing RAI...

It's obvious that quarks such as these developed for lots of people who had clear rule sets in 4th and got ...well... chaos...in 5th.

This is at least still a semi-favorable interpretation of the rules. How many other people just flat out LOST abilities (like D-hunters and the stuff about minor-psychic powers, some Tau stuff, etc.) that were critical to their army's character and play dynamics?

The most heartless argument here is that since the current rule simply states it isn't destroyed instantly for landing within 1" and (no gak) it is obviously not referring to the current damage table when it states this, but rather the old 4th standards for landing on folks.. it's an antiquated rule and is thus negated.

How's that for ball-busting.

See, thing is-- no one is going to be that heartless... well most people. So for fun-- sure yeah go ahead and do your thing-- just don't expect to be ENTITLED to the most favorable interpretation simply on the basis of RAI when there are at least 3 other practical RAW examples.

1) Monolith saved from 1,2 w/in 1" and on top of
2) Monolith saved from 1,2 w/ in 1" but NOT on top of
3) Antiquated Rule Standard-- rules which rely on game mechanics no longer in effect are thus stricken from the codex effective

statu wrote:the BRB says 'If any models cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or within 1'' of an enemy model...the controlling player must roll on the deep strike chart'. the codex does not say anything about the mishap chart, only that if destroyed due to being within 1'' of an enemy model it is not destroyed, 3-6 on the mishap chart prevent this from happening.

Uh.... you just said it right there.

The brb says if models CANNOT BE DEPLOYED because they would be in 1".

It CAN be deployed, despite enemies being within 1", so no roll is made on the mishap table.

Spellbound wrote:

statu wrote:the BRB says 'If any models cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or within 1'' of an enemy model...the controlling player must roll on the deep strike chart'. the codex does not say anything about the mishap chart, only that if destroyed due to being within 1'' of an enemy model it is not destroyed, 3-6 on the mishap chart prevent this from happening.

Uh.... you just said it right there.

The brb says if models CANNOT BE DEPLOYED because they would be in 1".

It CAN be deployed, despite enemies being within 1", so no roll is made on the mishap table.

Hmm. That is a good point. I will peruse the rules to see if I can find an argument to this, but for now I concede.

We need Gwar! back...

Lordhat wrote:

Spellbound wrote:

statu wrote:the BRB says 'If any models cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or within 1'' of an enemy model...the controlling player must roll on the deep strike chart'. the codex does not say anything about the mishap chart, only that if destroyed due to being within 1'' of an enemy model it is not destroyed, 3-6 on the mishap chart prevent this from happening.

Uh.... you just said it right there.

The brb says if models CANNOT BE DEPLOYED because they would be in 1".

It CAN be deployed, despite enemies being within 1", so no roll is made on the mishap table.

Hmm. That is a good point. I will peruse the rules to see if I can find an argument to this, but for now I concede.

AHA! Sorry, but this is such a weird argument (no offense to either argument) and odd that it came up regarding pivoting a monolith and blocking it's portal...especially seeing how old the codex is...but back on the (changed) topic, Spellbound has a pretty good point.

Well I have perused the rules and I believe that my previous reading is still correct.

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

This quote indicates that deepstriking is considered movement.

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

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

So back to the order of the events:

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

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

Movement rules say you can never move closer than 1" of an enemy model. There's nothing bad that happens if you do.....you just can't! Ever! The monolith has nothing to do with this. In fact it's subject to the same restrictions. A monolith can't move within 1" of an enemy model [unless it's moving over it and ends on the other side, a situation handled in the skimmer rules, which it follows].

DEEPSTRIKE is an entirely different form of movement, such that you can appear anywhere, suddenly. In this case, should you end up within 1" of an enemy AND thus CAN'T be deployed [see prior movement rules, you just can't do it!], you roll on the table.

The Monolith does say it's not destroyed, but also says that it can be deployed. This is obvious because it tells you exactly how to do it. Thus because it can be deployed, the rules for mishap don't apply here.

And no, you can't say that if it rolled a 3+ it couldn't be deployed, therefore blah blah - in that situation you'd have already rolled on the table you didn't need to roll on in order to create a situation in which it'd need to roll on the table. Nonsense!

I believe both things need to be in effect in order to cause a roll: Be unable to be placed, and have it be because of one of those reasons. That IS RAW. If you have ANOTHER case of RAW that contradicts it, well at least now we have two different interpretations that are both perfectly RAW-legal and NOW we can go with the one that makes the most sense and seems to go along with the way the monolith is supposed to work - because we aren't breaking any rules to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:and no rules which let it move to within 1" of an enemy.

Except that skimmer rule.

Spellbound wrote:
Movement rules say you can never move closer than 1" of an enemy model.

Agreed.

There's nothing bad that happens if you do.....you just can't! Ever!

Except that the DS rules detail exactly what happens if you do, and most consider the result 'bad'.

The monolith has nothing to do with this. In fact it's subject to the same restrictions. A monolith can't move within 1" of an enemy model [unless it's moving over it and ends on the other side, a situation handled in the skimmer rules, which it follows].

Agreed.

DEEPSTRIKE is an entirely different form of movement, such that you can appear anywhere, suddenly. In this case, should you end up within 1" of an enemy AND thus CAN'T be deployed [see prior movement rules, you just can't do it!], you roll on the table.

Agreed.

The Monolith does say it's not destroyed, but also says that it can be deployed. This is obvious because it tells you exactly how to do it. Thus because it can be deployed, the rules for mishap don't apply here.

And no, you can't say that if it rolled a 3+ it couldn't be deployed, therefore blah blah - in that situation you'd have already rolled on the table you didn't need to roll on in order to create a situation in which it'd need to roll on the table. Nonsense!

And here is the crux of our difference. And the crux of all the arguments made in this thread, I believe. There is only one instance in which the Monolith has a 'legal right' to be placed. An instance which only occurs if you roll on the Mishap table. No other set of parameters allows it to remain in that spot. The rule doesn't say "In any circumstance in which a deepstriking Monolith would be placed within 1" of an enemy model, move the the enemy model the shortest distance to be one inch away." It says that if the Monolith would be destroyed in the above situation, then move the enemy models. Even the skimmer rules you mentioned only allow the skimmer to move over the unit; in this case the skimmer is moving into the unit. In either case the skimmer must not be within an inch of the enemy's models at the end of the move.

I believe both things need to be in effect in order to cause a roll: Be unable to be placed, and have it be because of one of those reasons. That IS RAW.

I agree. I believe the RAW determines the Monolith to trigger those 'effects' (as you put it).

If you have ANOTHER case of RAW that contradicts it, well at least now we have two different interpretations that are both perfectly RAW-legal and NOW we can go with the one that makes the most sense and seems to go along with the way the monolith is supposed to work - because we aren't breaking any rules to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:and no rules which let it move to within 1" of an enemy.

Except that skimmer rule.

I'll take the time to point out that the skimmer rule doesn't let you move within an inch of enemy models, it simply lets you move 'over' them. You still must remain outside of one inch during your move.

In advance, I thank you for remaining polite during our discourse. :-)

You can't END your move within 1", but in so going over you still move within 1". You actually just ignore the enemy models entirely and move wherever, just make sure you end more than 1" away.

Of course since the Monolith is so huge it's impossible to begin your move outside 1", move 6", and be more than 1" away on the other side so it's more kind of if your corner's passing over someone or something.

Lordhat wrote:

The Monolith does say it's not destroyed, but also says that it can be deployed. This is obvious because it tells you exactly how to do it. Thus because it can be deployed, the rules for mishap don't apply here.

And no, you can't say that if it rolled a 3+ it couldn't be deployed, therefore blah blah - in that situation you'd have already rolled on the table you didn't need to roll on in order to create a situation in which it'd need to roll on the table. Nonsense!

And here is the crux of our difference. And the crux of all the arguments made in this thread, I believe. There is only one instance in which the Monolith has a 'legal right' to be placed. An instance which only occurs if you roll on the Mishap table. No other set of parameters allows it to remain in that spot. The rule doesn't say "In any circumstance in which a deepstriking Monolith would be placed within 1" of an enemy model, move the the enemy model the shortest distance to be one inch away." It says that if the Monolith would be destroyed in the above situation, then move the enemy models. Even the skimmer rules you mentioned only allow the skimmer to move over the unit; in this case the skimmer is moving into the unit. In either case the skimmer must not be within an inch of the enemy's models at the end of the move.

QFT. Lordhat has this one right IMO. The rule does not say to ignore the mishap table, only the destroyed result. Without rolling on the table, you do not have a destroyed result to ignore. If you don't roll on the mishap table, the mono's rule can't get triggered as it needs a destroyed result on that table in order to be triggered. It does not say that you ignore the other results, so you do not.

Once again, I'd like to point out that most of these are the most merciful interpretations impossible.

Simply put, the old deepstrike standards-to-results don't exist--thus rules that work off them probably shouldn't work. I mean, if the old DS rules said-- whenever you land within one inch OTE consider the vehicle purple--- and the old 'system' was based off colors, everyone would agree.. .well, colors don't exist anymore so this vehicle doesn't get it when it deepstrikes-- even if the practical equivalent of 'purple' was still around somewhere in the new ruleset. Being purple is not being the new standard.

Technically, and some might call this utterly asinine, the old 4th standard of 'being destroyed if enemy units are within 1"' is completely different from the noted rule for deepstrike.

Nowadays, the rules clearly state you're NOT flat out destroyed because enemies are within 1" when you land, Instead you're just generally negatively effected by the chart because you landed within 1" OR on Top of the enemy

Is it 'basically' the same thing--sure.
Is it actually?-no.

The old standard of being 'destroyed when you land if there are enemies within 1"' is its own thing separate from the current rules on DS mishap. It's just because the processes and effects are so similiar that people are assuming they're same. But like I've already said, purple is purple and not is not.

Any ruling that lets Monoliths still work this deep strike magic is a freebee-- because you just wanna have fun with a friend and let him operate his army the way it should be, i.e. RAI.

By the way, the EXACT wording on Deepstrike is this

""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 OR within 1" of an enemy model, something must have gone wrong" -emphasis added

Thus, another fine example of a split hair when trying to get an old DS mechanic to work. The monolith rules repeatedly mention the equivalent of being WITHIN 1"of the enemy which, no matter how much everyone here just looks the other way is certainly not ON TOP OF.

So even the most favorable interpretation of the rule still only works when you're simply within in 1".

Necron Codex p. 21 DEEPSTRIKE
"Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy [units] within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance [1"+] necessary to make space for the monolith"

BTW, about skimmers and moving within 1" when they jump over people. Yeah... the best I've got -- 'cause I can't remember the specific rule-- is that while normally you can't move within 1" or on top of other models because they're considered impassable terrain, the skimmer,wings, jumppack,etc rule allows those models to 'ignore intervening terrain' for the purposes of movement, but must end their move in passable terrain or some such rot.


Back to the Monolith though, listen, I KNOW what the RAI is and I would love to use it. I'd also love to use plenty of the other old nifty tricks and gimmicks for the races out there. But you can't just say- IT IS and close the book. This is just one of the reason people are screaming for a new necron 'dex or at least a meaningful errata.

Trying to make a differentiation between 'enemy models within 1"' and 'on top of enemy models' is flawed, as on top of is a subsection of all models within 1". Therefore, any model which is on top of another must certainly be within 1". They are functionally identical in this instance, differing only in how far a model would need to move in order to move out from under it.