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.

Kitzz wrote:Can you explain that? Why wouldn't the entry as it currently exists be treated as something specifically allowing him to do so?

Because it doesn't specifically allow him to do so.

'The shooting phase' does not specifically refer to your opponent's shooting phase. You are only given permission to perform actions in your own phase unless a rule specifically says otherwise.

Thanks, Insaniak.

Question...whatever. A big number. Can the Deceiver use Deceive and also Run! in the same shooting phase? If yes, does the order in which they are used matter?

Deceive doesn't say anything about being used instead of shooting, or in any way affecting what you can do in the shooting phase. So yes, I see no reason that he couldn't run in the same turn, and no, which order you perform those actions in shouldn't make a difference.

You're putting a lot of work into your own faq that will be rendered useless once the new codex hits ><

Our codex has been "next" for a half-decade. It isn't useless for this Ard Boyz season, and it isn't useless for the people who will play Necrons between now and the Codex release. I have a feeling I won't be seeing Necrons until after Black Templars and Tau. Just my jaded experience I suppose, but I won't be surprised if I'm right.

If by "next" you mean, "only wish listing for the past 5 years and not solid rumors until April of this year" lol

They actually are going to be this year. As for Tau and Templars, thats up for grabs. There has been talk of Dark Angels in there too, but nothing solid yet I don't think

Sisters are next. White Dwarf said so. Whatever these "solid rumors" are, I'd like to see them. I've seen nothing different than before. In any case, I saved the oddest for last.

Question last:
Ehh this is complicated, so I've attached a jpeg to this message for you to refer to. In the image, the square shape is the Monolith, from a bird's-eye view, hollowed out so you can see what is underneath it as it is Deep Striking. The black circles represent a squad of models (let's say IG) that the monolith is landing on. Assume that model A is equidistant from all four sides of the Monolith. Assume that model B is currently 2" away from the nearest model to it.

A) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules imply that you do the moving, do you decide which side A is moved to, or does your opponent? Will this apply to all models equidistant from two or more sides of a Deep Striking monolith? Is there an order in which you move models, or is it considered simultaneous? Note that if a large vehicle was southwest of B, B might have to be moved a significant distance.

B) Given the above, and as the Monolith's rules state that models in the way of its Deep Strike are moved the minimum distance necessary to make space for the monolith, will B thus be out of coherency with the rest of its squad? Note the implications of question A as it relates to this issue.

Well, buried somewhere within the 60+ pages of yakface's post there was a rumor on them coming out in October, after the Sisters in August. I give his rumors a bit more credit, seeing as how he nailed the grey knights, dark eldar, and tyranids so well.

As far as the movement question, I recall something similar to this being posted before. Pretty sure the consensus was that units moved the minimum while maintaining it, which actually allowed the units to move further than that actual minimum. However, since I can't cite that in the actual rules, it might have just been typical YMDC agreement (or lack there of lol)

You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

The Monolith rules tell you to move the models out of the way, not how to do it.

And the Monolith follows the rules of the deep strike mishap table. The specific rule on page 21 of the Necron codex only comes into play if the Monolith player rolls a 'destroyed' result on the deep strike mishap table.
But that subject was done to death some time ago.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

No, no it doesnt. It states TO MOVE, in order to move you must follow the movement rules, meaning no out of coherency allowed. If you disagree please quote these supposed rules that dont exist in my 2nd printing of the necron codex

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

Wrong. IT IF WOULD BE DESTROYED you move models out of the way. Dont ignore rules when Ive already alluded to them. When would it be destroyed? If it rolls a 1 - 2 result on the mishap table. NOTHING allows you to ignoer mishaps in general. Oddly enough because mishaps didnt exist in 3rd ed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You cannot move something out of coherency; see evewry single rule regarding movement. Nothing tells you not to follow the movement rules, so you do.

Remember you ONLY move the models out of the way IFF the monolith would be destroyed; i.e. mishap 1 - 2. NOTHING gives you permission to ignore the mishap table, so you must roll on it.

The Monolith rule tells you how to move the models out of the way. This might put models out of coherency which would need to be rectified in the following enemies movement phase.

No, no it doesnt. It states TO MOVE, in order to move you must follow the movement rules, meaning no out of coherency allowed. If you disagree please quote these supposed rules that dont exist in my 2nd printing of the necron codex

Page 21 of the Codex Necron: "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith." Nothing is stated about making sure to keep the unit in coherence, just move the models out of the way with minimal movement. This would result in the OP example of B potentially moving out of coherency.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith only mishaps if it lands on friendly models. Enemy models are moved to the side, per page 21 of the Necron Codex.

Wrong. IT IF WOULD BE DESTROYED you move models out of the way. Dont ignore rules when Ive already alluded to them. When would it be destroyed? If it rolls a 1 - 2 result on the mishap table. NOTHING allows you to ignoer mishaps in general. Oddly enough because mishaps didnt exist in 3rd ed.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The rules state to move the models out of the way if the Monolith lands on enemy models. The fact it isn't destroyed when landing on/near enemy models has no bearing on how the Monolith enters play. This is the same interpretation the INAT has (see NEC.21C.03).

No, that's not what the rule actually says:

"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........."

"it is not destroyed". So only one of the three possible Mishap results apply, the other two are not ignored and occur as normal. Only the Destroyed result is changed by the Monolith rules.

don_mondo wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The rules state to move the models out of the way if the Monolith lands on enemy models. The fact it isn't destroyed when landing on/near enemy models has no bearing on how the Monolith enters play. This is the same interpretation the INAT has (see NEC.21C.03).

No, that's not what the rule actually says:

"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........."

"it is not destroyed". So only one of the three possible Mishap results apply, the other two are not ignored and occur as normal. Only the Destroyed result is changed by the Monolith rules.

Though I play it the way you interpret the rule (just to avoid the hassle) I'm still personally of the opinion that the intent of the rule is to avoid mishaps all together when enemies are in the way, considering the only "result" from this in third edition was to be destroyed, that was the only result that needed to be mentioned. So as I said, the intent of the rule is somewhat clear but the fact that GW didn't include it in the FAQ update doesn't leave any actual fighting room to say if the rule works one way or another.

Also, I pretty much never deep strike my monoliths either so that helps out too.

don_mondo wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The rules state to move the models out of the way if the Monolith lands on enemy models. The fact it isn't destroyed when landing on/near enemy models has no bearing on how the Monolith enters play. This is the same interpretation the INAT has (see NEC.21C.03).

No, that's not what the rule actually says:

"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........."

"it is not destroyed". So only one of the three possible Mishap results apply, the other two are not ignored and occur as normal. Only the Destroyed result is changed by the Monolith rules.

Uh, the rules don't state "If the Monolith is destroyed, move the models out of the way" it makes a blanket statement that the Monolith isn't destroyed when landing on enemy models (a reference to third and fourth edition rules) and that the enemy models are just moved out of the way. This is a similar rule to the Drop Pod which just stops short of enemy models instead of landing on them. No mishap role is made in that instance either.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Uh, the rules don't state "If the Monolith is destroyed, move the models out of the way" it makes a blanket statement that the Monolith isn't destroyed when landing on enemy models (a reference to third and fourth edition rules) and that the enemy models are just moved out of the way. This is a similar rule to the Drop Pod which just stops short of enemy models instead of landing on them. No mishap role is made in that instance either.

First, the drop pod has a special rule that specifically says that if the scatter distance would cause the pod to land on friendly or enemy models, you reduce the scatter distance to avoid the models.
What happens if you choose to place the drop pod onto an enemy unit and it doesn't scatter? You don't reduce the scatter distance, you suffer a mishap.

Second, the deep strike rule for the Monolith was written 2 editions of the main rules ago.
Since then, the main rules have changed. Not just for the Necrons, but for every army.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed off the board, it was destroyed. Gone. Period.
Now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands off the board, they suffer a mishap and have a 1 in 3 chance of being destroyed.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed on an enemy unit, is was destroyed. Gone. Period.
But now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands on an enemy unit, they suffer a mishap.
And if they roll a 1 or 2 on the mishap table, they are destroyed.

Except for the Monolith. It has a special rule that says, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."
So it is not destroyed like other units. And what caused it to be destroyed? Suffering a mishap and rolling a 1 or 2 on the mishap table.

So every other unit in the game is destroyed, but what happens to the Monolith?
"Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."

Clean, pure and simple. You move any of the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith does not get destroyed in this instance. We see what occurs instead of the Monolith being destroyed.

And how far do we move the model(s) "..that are in the way..."? The minimum distance necessary. And as has been pointed out, models may be compelled or forced to move but when they do so (ie. tank shock) they are moved 1" away and maintaining unit coherency.

If the unit could be forced to move its models 4" in one direction and end up out of coherency, but 7" in another direction and maintain coherency, then guess what, 7" is the minimum distance necessary for them to be moved.

time wizard wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Uh, the rules don't state "If the Monolith is destroyed, move the models out of the way" it makes a blanket statement that the Monolith isn't destroyed when landing on enemy models (a reference to third and fourth edition rules) and that the enemy models are just moved out of the way. This is a similar rule to the Drop Pod which just stops short of enemy models instead of landing on them. No mishap role is made in that instance either.

First, the drop pod has a special rule that specifically says that if the scatter distance would cause the pod to land on friendly or enemy models, you reduce the scatter distance to avoid the models.
What happens if you choose to place the drop pod onto an enemy unit and it doesn't scatter? You don't reduce the scatter distance, you suffer a mishap.

Nope. You reduce the distance the Drop Pod deepstriked to avoid the obstacle. I was using the DP as an example of a rule similar the Monoliths so I'm not going to debate the DP rule here.

Second, the deep strike rule for the Monolith was written 2 editions of the main rules ago.
Since then, the main rules have changed. Not just for the Necrons, but for every army.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed off the board, it was destroyed. Gone. Period.
Now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands off the board, they suffer a mishap and have a 1 in 3 chance of being destroyed.

In the last rules edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) landed on an enemy unit, is was destroyed. Gone. Period.

Agreed.

But now in 5th edition, if a Monolith (or any unit for that matter) lands on an enemy unit, they suffer a mishap.

And if they roll a 1 or 2 on the mishap table, they are destroyed.

Except for the Monolith. It has a special rule that says, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."

Exactly. When the Monolith arrives near/on enemy models, it is not destroyed. There is no mishap for the Monolith, you just move the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith not being destroyed is just a characteristic of the Monolith not a condition of the rule. The rule doesn't state "If the Monolith is destroyed...." is just states "...it is not destroyed...". The former is a condition of the rule the latter is a characteristic of the model.

And how far do we move the model(s) "..that are in the way..."? The minimum distance necessary. And as has been pointed out, models may be compelled or forced to move but when they do so (ie. tank shock) they are moved 1" away and maintaining unit coherency.

If the unit could be forced to move its models 4" in one direction and end up out of coherency, but 7" in another direction and maintain coherency, then guess what, 7" is the minimum distance necessary for them to be moved.

Except the rules state the MODELS are moved a minimum distance away from the Monolith. It neither addresses the unit nor states coherency must be maintained. So, each MODEL is moved the minimum distance necessary to get out of the way of the Monolith which may put some MODELS out of unit coherency. Page 12 discusses that sometime a unit may lose unit coherency and addresses how to deal with such issues. This is one of those situations that may make take a unit out of coherency.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Exactly. When the Monolith arrives near/on enemy models, it is not destroyed. There is no mishap for the Monolith, you just move the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith not being destroyed is just a characteristic of the Monolith not a condition of the rule. The rule doesn't state "If the Monolith is destroyed...." is just states "...it is not destroyed...". The former is a condition of the rule the latter is a characteristic of the model.

Well, if you want to take the Monolith rule in complete isolation, then since it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, it would have to follow that if there are no enemy within 1" then it is destroyed.

But of course that's ridiculous.

The monolith rule is a cause and effect rule.

Under the old edition, if any unit landed within 1" of an enemy unit, it was destroyed.
Cause-land within 1" of enemy, effect-destroyed.

Except the Monolith would not be destroyed, you move the enemy models.
Cause-do not suffer a destroyed result, effect-move the enemy models.

Now under the 5th edition rules, we have a mishap table and still cause and effect.
If any unit lands on top or within 1" of an enemy unit it suffers a mishap.
Cause-land within 1" of enemy, effect-suffer a mishap.
There is nothing in the Necron codex, errata or FAQ that says the Monolith does not suffer a mishap, ergo, it suffers a mishap.

If any unit suffers a deep strike mishap and rolls a 1 or 2 it is destroyed.
Cause-suffer mishap roll 1 or 2, effect-destroyed.

Except the Monolith has a rule that says it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives.
Cause-do not suffer a destroyed result, effect-move the enemy models.

The cause and effect are exactly the same as in the past.
What has changed is what triggers the cause and effect.

This is applying the rules and the codex as written.
To do otherwise is either omitting or ignoring a portion of the rulebook.

time wizard wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Exactly. When the Monolith arrives near/on enemy models, it is not destroyed. There is no mishap for the Monolith, you just move the enemy models out of the way. The Monolith not being destroyed is just a characteristic of the Monolith not a condition of the rule. The rule doesn't state "If the Monolith is destroyed...." is just states "...it is not destroyed...". The former is a condition of the rule the latter is a characteristic of the model.

Well, if you want to take the Monolith rule in complete isolation, then since it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives, it would have to follow that if there are no enemy within 1" then it is destroyed.

But of course that's ridiculous.

The monolith rule is a cause and effect rule.

Under the old edition, if any unit landed within 1" of an enemy unit, it was destroyed.
Cause-land within 1" of enemy, effect-destroyed.

Except the Monolith would not be destroyed, you move the enemy models.
Cause-do not suffer a destroyed result, effect-move the enemy models.

Now under the 5th edition rules, we have a mishap table and still cause and effect.
If any unit lands on top or within 1" of an enemy unit it suffers a mishap.

The Monolith rule states those enemy models are moved out of the way in those instances of a mishap. Because of it's ponderous nature, the Monolith is not destroyed by simply landing on/near an enemy model. This is an artifact intended for previous edition rules and the BRB FAQ tells us to ignore such (see the Army Specific question).

Also, I will point out, again, the current version of the INAT comes to the same conclusion: the Monolith does not mishap when landing on/near enemy models, just move the models out of the way (as per the Monolith rule).

TGA - stop missing the key word: MOVE

MOVE

MOVE

MOVE

Where are the rules that tell you how to move? In the BRB. And those same rules tell you to maintain coherency.

You cannot argue intent over a rule that did not exist when the monolith rules were written. Well, you could, but it would be laughable.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The Monolith rule states those enemy models are moved out of the way in those instances of a mishap.

No.
It.
Doesn't.

It never once references "mishap". if it did, I would agree with you. All it references is that the Monoltih is not destroyed. it never says it cannot be delayed. it never says it cannot be placed elsewhere by the opponent. Sure, those game mechanics were not in existence when the codex was written. And GW has had how long to FAQ those? And yet, they haven't. the only result that the Monolith is protected against is being destroyed, it does not have a blanket protection against all three types of mishap. While that may indeed be (and once was) GWs intent, that's not what the rules currently say.

As for the INAT, well, so they (IMO) got one wrong. Your point?

Y'all can stop arguing with TGA about this rule. He's been on the opposite side of raw since this topic first came up several several threads ago. He insists on reading the word 'Mishap' in the Monolith rules where it isn't printed. I'm beginning to believe he's actually colored the word into his codex with a giant crayon.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Because of it's ponderous nature, the Monolith is not destroyed by simply landing on/near an enemy model. This is an artifact intended for previous edition rules and the BRB FAQ tells us to ignore such (see the Army Specific question).

This one?
Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules)
that seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you
going to publish an errata to change them to
something else that does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave
it until the next edition of the Codex rather than
change its effects through an errata.

Okay, so then by your logic, this FAW says not to use that section of the Monolith rules.

In which case if it lands on or within 1" of an enemy model it suffers a mishap and if you roll a 1 or 2 it is destroyed like any other model. Right?

Except the effect of not being destroyed is still relevant and is still a valid rule for the Monolith.

And it is not because of its ponderous nature - ponderous means it is a skimmer that only moves up to 6" a turn, it does not drift if shaken or stunned (3rd edition rule?) and it does not crash if immobilised (4th edition rule?).

It is becasue of its Deep Strike rule that it doesn't get destroyed like other models.

Not really. In the older editions simply arriving via deep strike within 1" of an enemy, ment the unit was destroyed. To which you would need premission to not be destroyed. Which is why it appears in the Monolith's rule.

Mishaps are easier to avoid thou. Since the rule states "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would ect". All you have to do is have a special rule that allows the model to be deployed that overrules what was causing the mishap. You don't actually need "Mishap" writen into the rule at all. It's better to have it writen but not required.

So the question really boils down to timing.

The first part of the monolith's "Deep Strike" special rule references a rule that no longer exist. Since no unit in the game is destroyed just because it deep struck within 1" of an enemy model. The second part clearly shows that models in the way of the monolith are moved.

Does the fact that the Monolith has a special rule that allows it to be deployed overide triggering a mishap???

There is only two answers, either it can be deployed or it cannot deployed. If it can be deployed because it's special rule then there is no mishap roll.

I feel that forcing a mishap roll to see if the model's special rule that would ignore the mishap roll altogether, is silly.

Lordhat wrote:Y'all can stop arguing with TGA about this rule. He's been on the opposite side of raw since this topic first came up several several threads ago. He insists on reading the word 'Mishap' in the Monolith rules where it isn't printed. I'm beginning to believe he's actually colored the word into his codex with a giant crayon.

No, I'm saying the Monolith has a rule that deals with landing on/near enemy models when deepstriking: move the enemy models out of the way. The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on/near enemy models in the fifth edition rules is moot.

Stonerhino wrote:I feel that forcing a mishap roll to see if the model's special rule that would ignore the mishap roll altogether, is silly.

What would you do if your Monolith scattered off the table?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Lordhat wrote:Y'all can stop arguing with TGA about this rule. He's been on the opposite side of raw since this topic first came up several several threads ago. He insists on reading the word 'Mishap' in the Monolith rules where it isn't printed. I'm beginning to believe he's actually colored the word into his codex with a giant crayon.

No, I'm saying the Monolith has a rule that deals with landing on/near enemy models when deepstriking: move the enemy models out of the way. The fact the Monolith is not destroyed when landing on/near enemy models in the fifth edition rules is moot.

Except it doesn't have any such rule. It has a rule saying:

"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........."

Notice the word "Instead"? It's part of what you keep ignoring. It means that the move enemy models clause is tied to the not destroyed clause in the preceding sentence. So unless there is a possibility of the Monolith being destroyed (which can only happen if you roll on the Mishap chart), then the move enemy models clause is not in play. I believe this also answers rhino's objections, but neither of you has been convinced the numerous other times this has come up and I truly don't expect either of you to change your minds now. But at least the OP now knows what the rules really say.

time wizard wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:I feel that forcing a mishap roll to see if the model's special rule that would ignore the mishap roll altogether, is silly.

What would you do if your Monolith scattered off the table?

Well since the monolith does not have a special rule that allows it to be deployed if it scatters off the table. It would mishap as normal.

I don't see how bringing up something that is unrelated even matter to the subject.

The point was that if you force a monolith to roll on the mishap table (For landing within 1" of an enemy) and it rolls a 1-2. Then it would not have to roll on the mishap table, because it has a special rule that allows it to be deployed in the first place. Or in other words roll to see if you have to roll. Which I find silly.

don_mondo wrote:Notice the word "Instead"? It's part of what you keep ignoring. It means that the move enemy models clause is tied to the not destroyed clause in the preceding sentence. So unless there is a possibility of the Monolith being destroyed (which can only happen if you roll on the Mishap chart), then the move enemy models clause is not in play. I believe this also answers rhino's objections, but neither of you has been convinced the numerous other times this has come up and I truly don't expect either of you to change your minds now. But at least the OP now knows what the rules really say.

The problem is that the phrase "Not destroyed" is tied to rule that no long exists. So the phrase "Not destroyed" means about as much as the phrase "Because of it's sheer mass" as far as the rules go.

What does matter is the fact that the monolith has a special rule that allows it to be deployed if it lands within 1" of enemies. Because it can be deployed there is no mishap roll. The landing within 1" of an enemy has nothing to do with mishaps untill after the unit cannot be deployed.

I have tryed many times to change your mind and appoarch this subject from different angles. But you have always refused to listen and default back to the same argument. So if you will not listen to me or others. Then you should try PMing Yakface and ask why the Inat FAQs are against you as well.

if the not destroyed is tied to a rule that no longer exists, well, then so is the ability to push models aside. You don't get to cherry pick which part of a rule you want to follow and ignore the rest of it.

And oddly enough, I don't agree with every ruling in the INAT either. Do you? 100%?