Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 16:49:22
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
If it helps at all, I have never met anyone who suggested actually playing the monolith rules as they are written.
They are, however, written so that they apply in (less than) 1/3 of the mishaps in 5e.
People often read them otherwise, but that is something else entirely.
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 17:16:58
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
time wizard wrote:grotblaster wrote:5th Since there is no special rule for what to do if the Monolith lands off the table or in impassable terrain I roll on the mishap chart if that happens. If the Monolith lands within 1" of an enemy model there is a special rule, so I follow that instead. Please note that it does not say if the Monolith is within "1" of an enemy model and would be destroyed" only "if it is within 1" of an enemy model it is not destroyed". This is why we never reach the mishap table.
Everything was good up until this point.
Again, you don't invoke the codex special rule before the main rule.
BRB page 95 top right spells out deep strike mishaps. These rules apply to every unit in every codex that deep strikes.
They specify what happens to each and every unit that mishaps.
Every unit in every codex that scatters within 1" of an enemy unit and rolls a '1' or '2' on the mishap table is destroyed.
Except one particluar unit (that I know of) and that unit is the Necron Monolith which has a special rule that says it is not destroyed if it arrives within 1" of an enemy. You instead move the enemy units the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith.
With the exception of the other two types of results on the mishap table, that is the only condition that would prevent destruction of the Monolith, unlike any other deep striking unit.
Once again, you do not deep strike the monolith, follow a special rule in the codex, and if that doesn't fit follow the rules in the main rulebook.
You follow the rules in the main rulebook (in this case rules for deep strike mishaps) and after the effect has been applied (ie. being destroyed) you can then use a special rule (ie. monolith deep strike) that a unit has in it's codex.
How do you deal with Drop pods? Descent of Angels? Lictors? Marbo? There are lots of units that deepstrike that replace the normal steps taken in deep strike. If a drop pod scatters onto impassable terrain or an enemy model, you don't roll on the mishap table. You "reduce the scatter distance by the minimum required..." This interrupts the deep strike steps as soon as the qualifying event takes place.
Same with the Monolith's rule about moving other models.
The deep strike mishap rules state "If any 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 deep strike mishap table and apply the results." If a drop pod lands on impassable terrain or an enemy model you reduce the the scatter distance so it can be placed and is therefore not affected by the mishap table. In the case of the Monolith, you move the other models instead, but the outcome (it is able to be placed and therefore not affected by the mishap table) is the same.
In both cases btw, the special rules say nothing about friendly models so you would roll on the mishap table if you land on friendly models.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 17:29:24
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Because they specifically state the alternative.
Same as the monolith, HOWEVER the monolith, because its from 3rd ed, only affects *1* of the *3* mishap results.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 17:34:22
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
grotblaster wrote:How do you deal with . . . Lictors? Marbo? There are lots of units that deepstrike that replace the normal steps taken in deep strike.
Neither of those two Deepstrike, actually.
grotblaster wrote:If a drop pod lands on impassable terrain or an enemy model you reduce the the scatter distance so it can be placed and is therefore not affected by the mishap table. In the case of the Monolith, you move the other models instead, but the outcome (it is able to be placed and therefore not affected by the mishap table) is the same.
This is where you mis-use the rules.
Drop pods (et al) reduce scatter to avoid using the mishap table.
Monoliths ignore being destroyed as a result of Deepstriking--which requires the mishap table to occur.
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 17:46:56
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Sinewy Scourge
Long Island, New York, USA
|
grotblaster wrote:How do you deal with Drop pods? Descent of Angels? Lictors? Marbo? There are lots of units that deepstrike that replace the normal steps taken in deep strike.
No unit replaces the normal steps in deep strike. To review;
First: Place one model from the unit on the table
Next: Roll the Scatter Die. If a hit the unit stays there, if an arrow roll 2D6
Next: Move the model that number of inches (total of the 2D6) in the direction of the arrow.
Next: Place any other models in the arriving unit in base contact with the first model.
Conditional: If any models would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, within 1" of an enemy model, roll on the mishap table.
Now granted, some units have special rules that would make certain steps unnecessary.
Units that deep strike within a certain distance of a Lictor don't scatter, ergo no scatter die roll.
Terminators deep striking within a certain distance of a teleport homer don't scatter, ergo no scatter die roll.
Drop pods, after rolling for scatter, will reduce the scatter distance to avoid certain obstacles (impassable terrain and other models) but they still roll the scatter die.
And if you fulfil any of the conditions for deep strike mishap, you follow that rule too.
Suppose you are foolish enough to dep strike a nid unit next to a Lictor and within 1" of an enemy unit. No scatter die roll. But you are still within 1" of an enemy unit so you trigger a deep strike mishap.
Bottom line is you still follow the main rules for deep striking and for deep strike mishaps. If a unit has a codex specific rule (like Lictor no scatter, drop pod inertial guidance, etc) then that special rule will take precedence over the specific part of the deep strike rule.
But you still follow the rule step by step.
|
I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire. The man who lies low and awaits developments usually comes off second best. - Erwin Rommel
"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 18:17:53
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
LOL @ Marbo Deepstriking
seriously have you read what a drop pod does?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 18:41:48
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
"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. "
"It is not destroyed" is a prohibition against a specific result the cause of which is "enemy within 1" when it arrives". The "enemy within 1" when it arrives" is the specific deep strike rule which it is addressing.
This rule has not changed and the steps taken to address the situation haven't changed either.
You don't check to see if models are within 1" after shooting it with a lascannon and getting a destroyed result. This is not a rule about what to do when the Monolith is destroyed, this is a rule about what to do when the Monolith arrives from deepstrike within 1" of enemy models.
I understand that you are reading the word "instead" to mean only if the outcome would be destroyed otherwise.
My point is that in normal similar English phrasing, "instead" followed by instructions does not mean "only in an instance of exact replacement of the earlier prohibition". Thus my examples of "In case of fire, do not panic. Instead, pull fire alarm." or "Don't shoot a bird if it comes into the backyard. Instead, refill the birdfeeder." These can be read as "in case of fire, pull the fire alarm" or "if a bird comes into the backyard, refill the birdfeeder". The additional prohibition is not seen as a necessary qualifier to following the subsequent instructions. I read the rule above in the same manner I would any similar English phrase.
OT: Would you say DoA doesn't replace normal steps? roll 1d6 vs. 2d6
P.S. I appreciate that this is civil discourse and no one is calling me names yet
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 18:47:02
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
GW doesn't use proper english, havn't you read a codex?
The rules for deepstrike changed and now alas the monolith is forced to follow them. Unfortunately Destroyed is Destroyed and well placed back in reserve unfortunately isn't.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 19:20:07
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Sinewy Scourge
Long Island, New York, USA
|
grotblaster wrote: "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. "
"It is not destroyed" is a prohibition against a specific result the cause of which is "enemy within 1" when it arrives". The "enemy within 1" when it arrives" is the specific deep strike rule which it is addressing.
This rule has not changed and the steps taken to address the situation haven't changed either.
You don't check to see if models are within 1" after shooting it with a lascannon and getting a destroyed result. This is not a rule about what to do when the Monolith is destroyed, this is a rule about what to do when the Monolith arrives from deepstrike within 1" of enemy models.
Exactly! What do we do when it arrives 1" from an enemy model?
Well consider this. The Necron Codex gives the Monolith permission to deploy by deep strike. But the Necron Codex does not give any mechanics for this arrival.
The mechanics for deep strike deployment are found only in one place, the main rulebook.
There have been substantial changes in the deep strike rules from one edition to another.
As has been said, in past editions if you scattered or landed within 1" of an enemy unit you were destroyed, no ifs ands or buts. Not so the Monolith!
It has a special rule that says to move the enemy unit.
You followed all the rules for deep striking and were granted an exception to being destroyed (a specific result) by landing within 1" of an enemy (a specific condition).
Now in the new rules, the same condition (landing within 1" of an enemy model among others) does not trigger being destroyed, instead it triggers a "mishap". This gives all units a chance of avoiding destruction.
Now if a unit does land within 1" of an enemy, it rolls on the mishap table.And if it rolls a '1' or '2', the unit is destroyed. Not so the Monolith!
It has a special rule that says to move the enemy unit.
You followed all the rules for deep striking and were granted an exception to being destroyed (a specific result) by landing within 1" of an enemy (a specific condition).
grotblaster wrote:
I understand that you are reading the word "instead" to mean only if the outcome would be destroyed otherwise.
There is no other interpretation. "Instead" can only refer to a specific exemption (move the enemy models) to an otherwise specific result (being destroyed) to a specific condition (landing within 1" of an enemy model).
grotblaster wrote:
P.S. I appreciate that this is civil discourse and no one is calling me names yet
I never indulge in name calling. It has no place in an intelligent discussion.
|
I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire. The man who lies low and awaits developments usually comes off second best. - Erwin Rommel
"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 19:24:28
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
As above.
The "instead" IS a condition based on meeting the prior event - the prior event being "monolith would be destroyed"
The monolith would NOT be destroyed if it rolls a 3 - 6 on the mishap chart. So the "move models out of the way" is not triggered.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 19:30:13
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
Proper English or not the rules are written in English (at least the ones I have) and all require an interpretation of how to apply written word to tabletop gameplay. Your interpretation is that "do not do x" followed by "instead do y" means "only if x occurs should you do y". I read it to mean "do not do x, in addition do y."
I believe similar phrasing supports the common understanding of the latter.
Also, my apologies for the Lictor and Marbo comments. Last edition lictors deep struck but did not deviate out of terrain. Was thinking Marbo was worded similar but without codices handy I was wrong. The one rule I was correct on was drop pods, which interestingly enough is the one jd chose to mock me for
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 19:41:27
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw
|
The diference is they are similar because they deepstrike, similarities will end there, the pod, Spod, DoA all have their own special rules for deepstriking. The monoliths rule is fairly specific, as is the word destroyed. If it's not destroyed my models stay and the monolith gos packing. If it didn't say destroyed you'd be right. Otherwise you're not meeting the requirements set upon to deepstrike. missed the drop pod line my bad
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 19:42:06
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 20:09:43
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
grotblaster wrote: I read it to mean "do not do x, in addition do y."
Here is your problem. When the rule clearly says "instead" (by using the specific word, no less), you read "in addition". There is no phrasing anywhere in the rule that even indicates the term in addition. I don't know how you can justify this to yourself. As a matter of fact, I've just decided that you are in fact, trolling. There's no other way I can comprehend that someone with a working knowledge of the English language can read "instead" as "in addition". Good day.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 20:29:28
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
grotblaster wrote:P.S. I appreciate that this is civil discourse and no one is calling me names yet
Lordhat wrote: As a matter of fact, I've just decided that you are in fact, trolling.
Aww, man.
Lordhat wrote:someone with a working knowledge of the English language
And British even, easily confused for americans.
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:02:49
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.
For instance if I say "Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. Instead, be polite and clear." Being polite and clear indeed replaces being insulting. But the intent to be insulting is not necessary to following directions to be polite and clear.
This follows in both the King's English and for those of us who speak some broken derivative.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:05:39
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
grotblaster wrote:Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that. For instance if I say "Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. Instead, be polite and clear." Being polite and clear indeed replaces being insulting. But the intent to be insulting is not necessary to following directions to be polite and clear. This follows in both the King's English and for those of us who speak some broken derivative. So, you're saying the instructions from your sentence are: 1) Do not be insulting. 2) If you want to get your point across, be polite and clear. That means the Monolith's rules would say: 1) It is not destroyed. 2) If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, move those models out of the way. But, this breakdown has no other qualifiers. It wouldn't be destroyed by landing outside the game board, or by landing on your own models. Or, by getting shot by a lascannon the following turn.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/01 21:08:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:09:46
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that.
An edit for your edit
I would clarify that the instructions are:
1)Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. (the statement doesn't actually say never be insulting)
2)If you want to get you point across, be polite and clear
and following:
1)it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives
2)If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, move those models out of the way
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 21:18:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:11:22
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I think Grak was trying to say your breakdown of the monoliths rules dont actually work, as it makes it immune to all damage if it deepstrikes.
If you end up with a ludicrous result rethink your parsing...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:16:31
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:I think Grak was trying to say your breakdown of the monoliths rules dont actually work, as it makes it immune to all damage if it deepstrikes.
If you end up with a ludicrous result rethink your parsing...
That is what I was trying to say. Took me a few edits to get it across though...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:21:39
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
grotblaster wrote:Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.
And if X were the only possible outcome in this situation (as it used to be) then you'd be 100% correct. But now there's D and M as well. The only way to trigger X is to roll on the mishap chart.
|
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:23:02
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
grotblaster wrote:1)it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives 2)If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, move those models out of the way
If it said that, you could very well be correct. Instead replace "arrives" with "would be destroyed (because of Deepstrike resolution)" and see how it works--and compares to the text.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 21:23:16
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:39:03
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
Lordhat wrote:grotblaster wrote:Lordhat: I should have stated it as "do not do x; do Y" and left it at that.
And if X were the only possible outcome in this situation (as it used to be) then you'd be 100% correct. But now there's D and M as well. The only way to trigger X is to roll on the mishap chart.
In my prior statement "Do not be insulting if you want to get your point across. Instead, be polite and clear." You may not be intending to be insulting. There may be a 1/3 chance that you will be insulting, a 1/3 chance that you'll be coy and a 1/3 chance that you'll be flirtatous. Do the instructions to be clear and polite apply only when you are intending to be insulting?
Kirsanth: The rule states "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives", not "if it would be destroyed...." so I don't think replacing the text is appropriate.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:42:21
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Aspirant Tech-Adept
|
The analogies are getting further and further away from our source material I think. Also we seem to be running in circles. Based on the article I think most people agree that you should roll on mishap first, but it is GENERALLY not played that way. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree? Unless someone has anything new besides further dissecting the English language.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 21:44:03
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Huge Bone Giant
|
I do not think replacing ANY of the text is necessary.
I meant that your assertion of what the rules (should?) say should be changed as I suggested to closer match the rules.
Either way the rules themselves say neither, it is not 2 seperate actions.
|
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 22:08:38
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Sinewy Scourge
Long Island, New York, USA
|
grotblaster wrote:
Kirsanth: The rule states "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives", not "if it would be destroyed...." so I don't think replacing the text is appropriate.
Actually, the rule says "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."
What would make such a rule necessary? The answer is the last edition rulebook. Right in the deep strike rule where it said that "If you are unable to complete a circle of models without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off table, the surplus models are destroyed."
So if a Monolith entered impassable terrain or went off the table, it was destroyed. BUT, if it came to rest within 1" of an enemy unit, it was NOT destroyed, the enemy models were moved.
This special survival rule was granted by the Necron Codex.
Therefore, the monolith first had to follow the core rules for deep striking and if a certain condition was met, it would not be destroyed. In all other cases it would be destroyed.
Now the deep strike rules have changed. I've summarized and quoted them enough times that I don't have to do it again.
The monolith still has to follow the core rules for deep striking, and if a certain condition occurs, then it will use it's special rule.
Then, and ONLY then.
No amount of re-reading or re-interpreting of the rules will change to order of operation here.
If you choose to play it differently, so be it. But just understand it does not follow the rules.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/01 22:09:50
I have found again and again that in encounter actions, the day goes to the side that is the first to plaster its opponent with fire. The man who lies low and awaits developments usually comes off second best. - Erwin Rommel
"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 22:44:13
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
time wizard wrote:grotblaster wrote:
Kirsanth: The rule states "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives", not "if it would be destroyed...." so I don't think replacing the text is appropriate.
Actually, the rule says "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."
What would make such a rule necessary? The answer is the last edition rulebook. Right in the deep strike rule where it said that "If you are unable to complete a circle of models without any of them coming within 1" of the enemy, entering impassable terrain or going off table, the surplus models are destroyed."
Agree Completely
So if a Monolith entered impassable terrain or went off the table, it was destroyed. BUT, if it came to rest within 1" of an enemy unit, it was NOT destroyed, the enemy models were moved.
This special survival rule was granted by the Necron Codex.
Therefore, the monolith first had to follow the core rules for deep striking and if a certain condition was met, it would not be destroyed. In all other cases it would be destroyed.
Agree Completely.
Now the deep strike rules have changed. I've summarized and quoted them enough times that I don't have to do it againThe monolith still has to follow the core rules for deep striking, and if a certain condition occurs, then it will use it's special rule.
Agree Completely. So what is that "certain condition"? "If there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". Being destroyed is not part of this condition. It would be the normal remedy to the situation, but the rule is telling you not to apply this remedy. Instead you should apply a different remedy to this "condition". Instead, in the case of this "condition", the remedy is to move the models away. If the normal remedy changes, it does not change the fact that you have instructions to apply the special monolith remedy to this situation.
Then, and ONLY then.
No amount of re-reading or re-interpreting of the rules will change to order of operation here.
If you choose to play it differently, so be it. But just understand it does not follow the rules.
Edit:blue is not my color
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/01 22:47:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/01 23:29:36
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
You had it up to the last "Agree Completely"; then you lost it.
That "Certain Condition" is not an enemy being within 1". It is an enemy being within 1" and a destroyed result on the mishap table.
If the monolith wouldn't be destroyed, it's rules for what happens instead of it being destroyed cannot kick in.
|
This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/02 00:17:41
Subject: Re:Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Cog in the Machine
Epic Loot Centerville Ohio
|
How can the Monolith being destroyed be part of the condition this rule seeks to explain remedy of? Is it destroyed and then brought back? No it is never destroyed, therefore being destroyed is not part of the "condition". There was no mishap table and no destroyed result in 4th. The rule is telling us how to deal with the condition of being with 1" of an enemy when it arrives. It specifically states that we should not destroy it because that was the default remedy, not because that is part of the "condition" to be addressed.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/02 00:26:56
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Feasting on the souls of unworthy opponents
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:Norbu - except that isnt what the rules actually say. The rules are 100% clear on this, with no room for debate about them.
Some people just play how they are used to playing in 3rd / 4th - which is to be discouraged, otherwise I'll "forget" and start assaulting with my bezerkers from a rhino after moving 12" - because thats how it used to work.
The rules change, deal with it.
Hrm.....perfect RAW will never exist. While 5th edition rules might seem to need monoliths to take deepstrike tests, few people are in favor of RAW when they *favor* units.
For example, some RAW examples from the old DE codex:
-Blasters didn't have the lance special rule, so they reduced the armour of 12+ vehicles down to 12....even if it was a blessed hull Black Templar Land Raider that ignores lances.
-Wyches got their 4++ if they assaulted a vehicle and it exploded - because the dodge save wasn't conferred by being in close combat, it was conferred by the charge itself.
-Horrorfexes could pin any unit in the game (even fearless units) because it was forcing a leadership test, not a pinning test.
-Reaver Jetbikes were STR5 T5 because their base strength and toughness (4) was accentuated by the eldar jetbike rule.
Except....none of these were very accepted opinions, least of all by the rules lawyers here on Dakka, despite them being perfect RAW. There *is* a point where common sense needs to be injected to understand how an older codex applies to a rulebook using langauge that didn't exist at the time of the codex printing.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2010/12/02 00:33:20
Subject: Monolith Deepstrike 1" move... thingy
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
And here, in this case, the rules work PERFECTLY well with the 5th edition rules.
Roll on the table. If you roll a 1 or 2, the monolith is not destroyed. The other 2 results apply as normal.
Yes, this means that this reduces the monolith due to an edition change. Which is entirely irrelevant.
|
|
 |
 |
|