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

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


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

I'll match your snide and call:

Raw doesn't always over-ride RAI

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

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

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

Monoliths can mishap no matter how you read their rules.

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


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

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

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

Your right. Monoliths can mishap.

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



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

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

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

don_mondo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just doesn't make any sense to me.

time wizard wrote:I disagree Grakmar.

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

I think we're both in agreement.

Use the following flowchart to deep strike a monolith:

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

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

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

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

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


We're both in agreement, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galador wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Especially in this case.

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

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


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

I'll match your snide and call:

Raw doesn't always over-ride RAI

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

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

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


How about this for a flowchart though

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

Is there still anything that could cause a mishap underneath?

No

Land


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grakmar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He isn't wrong.

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

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

time wizard wrote:

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

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

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