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.

Well actually no...

If that was the case why do they specifically mention a difference in the deepstrike rules.

Why do they take pains to mention BOTH with the SM drop pod?

If they were the same, would GW bother to ever even bring it up in the first place in the rulebook or SM codex?

Were they exactly the same in 4th, sure. Are they in fifth? The rules don't say so.

I guess this is one of those things where if you never played under 4th you can see the difference, but if you did you've got rose-tinted glasses that only let one shade of light through.

I guess it's as simple as this. If there was ONLY the standard of being within 1? .... why would they mention "on top OR within 1'" in the rulebook?---Anwer= they wouldn't?

Does it dick old DS abilities that saved people if they were anywhere near or on top of enemies--yes

Does this prove my point further that the best argument for the old DS abilities is that they are antiquated and rely on rulesets no longer in play--yes.

There are at least 2 core structural rule differences that have been posted in this thread suggesting the DS monolith rule should be shucked under RAW.

1) The old 'insta-destroyed' effect of landing in proximity to the enemy versus 5th's mishap table are completely different rules. To adapt the Monolith's 'not destroyed' effect for the current 5th table is an err. Would you go to the Tau and give them all twin-link because they used to get to do wonky stuff with target priority tests? Hell no. Why are you doing it with Necrons then?

2) within 1" used to mean within 1" and on top of (there was no perceived difference) and yet in 5th the rule set states each out separately and this is supported by the SM codex D-Pod rules (5th compliant) specifically mentioning both situations. If they were the same.. once again--- why would they bother mentioning both?

RAW reads a difference.

Soooo, like I said before. Any interpretation of the old rule that lets it still be fielded in any form is an act of mercy and done for the sake of fun and an enjoyable time. There's nothing wrong with that at all or even tournaments posting RAI rules for monoliths so Necron players don't get rule-shanked.


Like I said before, I just don't think they're ENTITLED to the most favorable interpretation of the rules.

Look on the good side though fellow necron players-- the next time you say the Necron codex is broken-- you have an example to point out.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
After this thread, I'm not going to be surprised if I'm officially declared TFG, lol.