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.

TK - the problem is the poster ISNT wrong. The rules back them up, something which you have failed to argue against (you try to claim the mishap - destroyed protects them automatically from any other mishap, which is illogical to the extreme) and your poll is badly worded to create bias.

Whether you meant to do that or not, your poll is heavily biased, and cannot be relied upon to produce clear results.

guys when the codex was written destruction was the only mishap. it wasn't a 1-2 result on the mishap table because the mishap table didn't exist. so you could read it as the monolith doesn't mishap, it moves enemy models. of course, you won't do that until the necron code.x comes out and states that for you. then i will revive this post with a huge "i told you so"...because again, RAI is better than RAW because this is a game we are meant to enjoy...and not a legally binding contract where we argue about wording and such

Does the rule for the monolith say it doesnt mishap? No?

Then it mishaps.

Thats the only way to read the actual rules.

Shenra wrote:guys when the codex was written destruction was the only mishap.

And now it isn't and yet the codex has not be errata'd.

Shenra wrote: then i will revive this post with a huge "i told you so"

So when a new book with new rules that have no bearing on this discussion comes out, you think it will change the way the old rules actually are written and justify. . .what exactly?

Really, that is part of the reason why *I think* the rules are written in this way. The rules isn't a rigid system like Magic: The Gathering. They are written in such a way to let people come up with their own rules. This allows the game to be classified as a hobby game. If this was not the mind set from GW, these issues would not be coming up. So I say, sense it is a hobby game, I will go with the RAI to allow the game to continue with the best overall reaction.

Zyllos wrote:So I say, sinse it is a hobby game, I will go with what I assume to be the RAI to allow the game to continue with the best overall reaction.

Basically, that is what most think.

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

Especially in this case.

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

Lets start with the first sentence I quoted from you. I don't know about the rest, but I know I'm not trying to tell you how to run your Monolith. I am just telling you what I percieve the rules to be from both sides.

Thank you for quoting that from another thread, it is how I feel every debate on YMDC should be looked at, and I feel honored you thought it was important enough to use it. Thanks for inflating my head just a bit more! j/k!

Bottom line, you don't have to change my mind, because I wouldn't do what I have debated to you. I know the difference between RAW and RAI, and I always refer to pg 2 of the BRB for the most important rule whenever my opponent and myself disagree. In other words, in a fun, friendly game, the rules aren't that important!!


Also, just one last thing, if you have never lost to Dark Eldar, you really need to find a new Dark Eldar opponent, cause they are just not doing something right. You might wanna have them get on Dakka and read Dash, Ketara, and Thor665's stuff, cause if you just can't lose to them, then thety must build horrid lists or else you are simply the most unbelievably outstanding Tactical Gen..... CREEEEEEEED!! Yeah but seriously, had to do that, but if you can't lose to them, something is wrong inthe way they play, because I have 2 Necron players here in the local meta, and while I haven't lost to them either, I haven't always won, they have at least beaten me to a draw on a few occasions, but for the most part, I push them to Phase Out on at least 80% of our games.

kirsanth wrote:

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

He isn't wrong.

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.
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.

kirsanth wrote:

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

He isn't wrong.

Rather then bother with comment I will just redirect with the same counter:

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.

Regardless how many times you quote it, it does not change the words in the codex.

There is no mention of 'mishap' in the Necron codex, I struggle to understand how you think it IS.

Mishap ≠ Destroyed

Mishaps can lead to destruction, but they are not the same thing.

Tomb King wrote:Rather then bother with comment I will just redirect with the same counter:

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.

Your support doesn't make you right, nor does it make the people who are supporting you right. It just means there are more people who are thinking along your lines than along time wizards.

And you do realize that you are actually defeating yourself form your original query of whether you can deepstrike directly on top of the enemies models, correct??? You might want to reread your deepstrike rules, as it gives you no permission to break the 1" rule when you pick the spot that you are trying to deep strike to. Which means that you cannot pick a spot on the field to be deep struck to that is already occupied by another model. So your first attempt at DS still has to be not on top of enemy models.

And you can't tell me that when you set it down in the original spot that you want, I have to move the models, because I don't. The original spot that you pick is where you want to come in, not necessarily where you will come in.

DS also states that you must place the unit on the table where you want it to come in, so you can't place it there if there are models in the way. And you can't hold it in the air above the spot, as the rules state you must place it on the table. You can't set it on the models as the rules state you must place it on the table. You can't place it on the table because my models are in that area, and seeing as you haven't rolled for scatter yet, you haven't entered play yet, so you can't use your SHEER MASS to move my models yet.

So, you can deep strike over top of me if you want, if you can follow the Deep Strike rules, which as I just showed, you can't. And honestly, if you insisted on that you could after I told you no, and you tried to again place your monolith ontop of the models that I have taken hours to paint and convert and make to my liking, I would remind you once not to do it, after that, I would physically prevent you from setting that big, heavy model ontop of my models that you couldn't move yet, and if you still tried, and actually set it on my models, I would then play Bowling for Necrons with your Monolith.

Wanna see if I can get a strike???

Galador wrote:And you do realize that you are actually defeating yourself form your original query of whether you can deepstrike directly on top of the enemies models, correct??? You might want to reread your deepstrike rules, as it gives you no permission to break the 1" rule when you pick the spot that you are trying to deep strike to. Which means that you cannot pick a spot on the field to be deep struck to that is already occupied by another model. So your first attempt at DS still has to be not on top of enemy models.

This is not true, Deepstrike allows you to place the DS model anywhere on the table.

Unless you are going to say terrain (including open terrain) is not included on that, which is demonstrably false.

kirsanth wrote:

Galador wrote:And you do realize that you are actually defeating yourself form your original query of whether you can deepstrike directly on top of the enemies models, correct??? You might want to reread your deepstrike rules, as it gives you no permission to break the 1" rule when you pick the spot that you are trying to deep strike to. Which means that you cannot pick a spot on the field to be deep struck to that is already occupied by another model. So your first attempt at DS still has to be not on top of enemy models.

This is not true, Deepstrike allows you to place the DS model anywhere on the table.

Unless you are going to say terrain (including open terrain) is not included on that, which is demonstrably false.

show me where placing the Monolith on my models is on the table.

Models count as impassible terrain.

Page 14 main rulebook.

Editing to add:
Also check FAQ on Mawlocks etc.

kirsanth wrote:Models count as impassible terrain.

Page 14 main rulebook.

Ok, so then its an auto-mishap.

And its page 13, actually. Was looking for it and was like, where is it??? But thanks for the pointer!

Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

((Monoliths can technically mishap, but potentially ignore it. I have yet to see anyone play by the rules regarding that, however.))

kirsanth wrote:Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

Monlith has that if it lands within one inch of enemy models, not on top of them. It still can't land on Impassable terrain, and it actually can't be placed there to start with unless you can physically place the model, due to the skimmers being able to end on impassable terrain. But, I really don't think your going to balance a Monolith on top of a DE Warrior, honestly....

On top is not within an inch?!?

Also, the specific models I mentioned move models out of the way.

No need to balance, even though that is allowed with skimmers

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Technically, it depends on the height of the model. According to pg 3, within is measured from base to base to base, or the height of the model to the base of the model on the level above it. Since it will be placed on the same level as the model, the height doesn't factor in. So if my model is taller than 1", then yes, its not within 1".

(Semantics I know, but you did ask.... And just so this doesn't devolve into stupidity over these humorous postings, this is just humor all. Don't take my RAWing right now as trying to fight your Monolith rules, I am just giving you alternatives to think about. I am DE, I have Haywires. I LOVE it when you DS your Monolith close to me, so I don't have to go to it!! )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Also, the specific models I mentioned move models out of the way.

No need to balance, even though that is allowed with skimmers

They move them when they arrive. He hasn't arrived until he rolls the scatter, according to the rules. But you still have to use placement rules to put it on the table at all, so if he can't seit it on the impassable terrain of a model and have it stay there, then it can't be set there.

And trust me, with the amount of work I have put in on my models, there is no way it would be able to stay there..... the "Hand of God" rule would come into effect if someone tried this.

And there is need to balance, as per the skimmers and impassable terrain rules, it must be able to be place there, so that defeats wobbly model syndrome. At least, IMHO it does. If it states that it has to be able to be placed there, then you can't wobbly model it.

LOL

Cheers, I am a fan of moot discussions.

Long story short, you are always allowed to attempt to DS on top of models--enemy or not, it is just that is USUALLY a really, really, bad idea.

Galador wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

Monlith has that if it lands within one inch of enemy models, not on top of them. It still can't land on Impassable terrain, and it actually can't be placed there to start with unless you can physically place the model, due to the skimmers being able to end on impassable terrain. But, I really don't think your going to balance a Monolith on top of a DE Warrior, honestly....

If you want to get technical the damn thing teleports into the battle. It doesnt teleport onto the field and then figure out where it is going to go from there. If you are RAW that is. That means I could set it in the middle of your IG platoon if i wanted too lol. However, ignore this as this comment wasnt needed.


Your argument of me defeating myself was eliminated before it started. I didnt say I was gonna place it on top of them in my question did i? It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

Tomb King wrote: It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

That is still not true.

There are not rules in the necron codex that prevent mishap.

In fact Deepstrike mishaps are never EVER mentioned in the Necron codex.

Galador wrote:

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Technically, it depends on the height of the model. According to pg 3, within is measured from base to base to base, or the height of the model to the base of the model on the level above it. Since it will be placed on the same level as the model, the height doesn't factor in. So if my model is taller than 1", then yes, its not within 1".

(Semantics I know, but you did ask.... And just so this doesn't devolve into stupidity over these humorous postings, this is just humor all. Don't take my RAWing right now as trying to fight your Monolith rules, I am just giving you alternatives to think about. I am DE, I have Haywires. I LOVE it when you DS your Monolith close to me, so I don't have to go to it!! )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:On top is not within an inch?!?

Also, the specific models I mentioned move models out of the way.

No need to balance, even though that is allowed with skimmers

They move them when they arrive. He hasn't arrived until he rolls the scatter, according to the rules. But you still have to use placement rules to put it on the table at all, so if he can't seit it on the impassable terrain of a model and have it stay there, then it can't be set there.

And trust me, with the amount of work I have put in on my models, there is no way it would be able to stay there..... the "Hand of God" rule would come into effect if someone tried this.

And there is need to balance, as per the skimmers and impassable terrain rules, it must be able to be place there, so that defeats wobbly model syndrome. At least, IMHO it does. If it states that it has to be able to be placed there, then you can't wobbly model it.

Haywire blasters are actually brokenly good and I run them in nearly every one of my DE list. Scourges rock! Back on topic you all concede yet?

Tomb King wrote:

Galador wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Yep, unless you have a rule specifying otherwise, like Monoliths and Mawlocks.

etc.

Monlith has that if it lands within one inch of enemy models, not on top of them. It still can't land on Impassable terrain, and it actually can't be placed there to start with unless you can physically place the model, due to the skimmers being able to end on impassable terrain. But, I really don't think your going to balance a Monolith on top of a DE Warrior, honestly....

If you want to get technical the damn thing teleports into the battle. It doesnt teleport onto the field and then figure out where it is going to go from there. If you are RAW that is. That means I could set it in the middle of your IG platoon if i wanted too lol. However, ignore this as this comment wasnt needed.


Your argument of me defeating myself was eliminated before it started. I didnt say I was gonna place it on top of them in my question did i? It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

So now the Monolith doesn't have to follow ANY of the rules for Deep Striking?? even the ones that tell you how??? If you RAW, as you said. It must be physically placed on the table, THEN you roll the scatter dice. So, fluff aside about it teleporting, It has to be placed where you want it to go first.

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote: It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

That is still not true.

There are not rules in the necron codex that prevent mishap.

In fact Deepstrike mishaps are never EVER mentioned in the Necron codex.

Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

Tomb King wrote:
Haywire blasters are actually brokenly good and I run them in nearly every one of my DE list. Scourges rock! Back on topic you all concede yet?

Haywire blasters are unneccesary and too expensive for a Monolith. 10 wyches with Haywire grenades are MNCUH better for a Monolith, and I have yet to meed the Necron player that can stop me from getting to his Monoliths with my Haywires when I want to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

I am not stubborn because of RAW, I am stubborn because I learned it from my father! I am also not all about RAW, I just like to debate, cause I did it for 4 years in high school and have found it is an excellent way to meet intelligent people and learn other people perspectives and why they think that way.

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

It seems that since the rules do not back you you hope insults may help?

Perhaps you should actually read the rest of this thread. . .sirrah.

Tomb King wrote: It states that a monolith doesnt get destroyed if it deepstrikes within 1" of the enemy. Instead it moves them as far as needed out of the way.

Really cheesy tactic question:

Can I use this to deepstrike my monolith in the middle of a castled imperial guardsman player and make him scoot all of his tanks out of the way?

I edited the pull to cover the actual question at hand.

Original Post is above quote.

Tomb King wrote:
Your argument of me defeating myself was eliminated before it started. I didnt say I was gonna place it on top of them in my question did i? It states as you can see above, "Will a monolith mishap if it scatters onto enemy models?" In which the answer is no!

No, you didn't say that in your question up top, but I also wasn't referring to your poll question, I was referring to your " Dropping it into the middle of someone who is castled up to make them move their models. That was your original post, not your poll. In fact, if I remember correctly, you added the poll later, after people gave you both sides of the debate.

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

It seems that since the rules do not back you you hope insults may help?

Perhaps you should actually read the rest of this thread. . .sirrah.

I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

Kirsanth, you need to go back up to where I responded on the can't place on top and wher eyou said that on top is not within 1"? Cause I replied a bit more to you for us to have a further debate on it. I will be awaiting what you think, you dirty RAWer you!! j/k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tomb King wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Tomb King wrote:Myself and most intelligent people are RAI. They're are a select few that are RAW that are too damn stubborn to see the intent of some rules.

It seems that since the rules do not back you you hope insults may help?

Perhaps you should actually read the rest of this thread. . .sirrah.

I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

We debate because it is fun, and as I stated earlier in the thread, it helps you to learn to think from the other person's perspective, to see the rule from different angles, as different people do. Hence why we are still debating with you, to show you that just because your not going to agree, doesn't mean you can't understand, ya know?? While close, those two are worlds apart in difference!

Tomb King wrote:I actually laughed when you thought stubborn an insult. You have nothing supporting your argument and yet you argue you it none the less. Even when the consensus in the poll, 2 other forums, and 2 faq's are against the way you interpret the rule.

I have rules supporting me, you have insults and ignorance of them.

My interpreted insult was you saying that "Myself and most intelligent people are RAI" which strongly implies that folks disagreeing with you are not intelligent.

If you meant to imply otherwise, that statement was simply provocative non-sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:Kirsanth, you need to go back up to where I responded on the can't place on top and wher eyou said that on top is not within 1"? Cause I replied a bit more to you for us to have a further debate on it. I will be awaiting what you think, you dirty RAWer you!! j/k

heh

I read it, but it is not exactly correct.

Your model is not disallowed from being placed anywhere on the table when it is given the allowance to be placed anywhere on the table