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.

If this is legal can you point me in the direction of the rulebook to where? (monolith on ruins)
If not, can you also point me to where?

As you can see from poor old Bear looking up the rules it caused a bit of debate last week.....(I didnt think it was legal)

Yes, it's legal.

WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3 wrote:Page 248 – Ruins
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can FLY, VEHICLES, MONSTERS, CAVALRY and BIKERS can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins.’

And because I know someone will nitpick, this is, of course, assuming you're using the rules for Ruins as laid out in the Core Rulebook of Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, the Monolith has sufficient Movement characteristic to reach the top of the ruin, there aren't any house rules in effect preventing it, etc. etc.

Great thank you!

Agreed. The monolith can be set up there, and it can move up there because it has the FLY keyword.

Suppose I might as well get a few more future questions out of the way
In that situation there is no way to engage the lith in combat is there - except with another flier like a hive tyrant etc?

If that terrain piece was something other than ruins - say a bunker or a tower or a large (impassable) rocky outcrop - could Fliers also fly up to the top of them?

 Ratius wrote:
Suppose I might as well get a few more future questions out of the way
In that situation there is no way to engage the lith in combat is there - except with another flier like a hive tyrant etc?

If that terrain piece was something other than ruins - say a bunker or a tower or a large (impassable) rocky outcrop - could Fliers also fly up to the top of them?

1.
If a unit cannot move such that its base is within 1" of the Monolith's then correct it cannot be engaged. Even flying units may not be able to get there if there's nothing to put their base on within 1".

2.
Depends on what the bunker is defined as. If it's terrain they probably can. If it's a fortification with a datasheet then it is a model and not terrain, and you can't put models on top of models.

 Ratius wrote:
Suppose I might as well get a few more future questions out of the way
In that situation there is no way to engage the lith in combat is there - except with another flier like a hive tyrant etc?

If that terrain piece was something other than ruins - say a bunker or a tower or a large (impassable) rocky outcrop - could Fliers also fly up to the top of them?

As confirmed by FAQ, if a model can't physically get within 1" of the Monolith's hull (it has to be hull, not the base due to the Monolith's Hovering rule), then they can't attack it.

WARHAMMER 40,000 RULEBOOK Official Update Version 1.3 wrote:Q: If a unit declares a charge against an enemy unit that is entirely on the upper level of a terrain feature such as a ruin, Sector Mechanicus structure, etc., but it cannot physically end its charge move within 1" of any models from that unit (either because there is not enough room to place the charging unit, or because the charging unit is unable to end its move on the upper levels of that terrain feature because of the expanded terrain rules for it – as with ruins, for example), does that charge fail?
A: Yes.

It's stupid, but them's the rules and GW has said RaW = RaI. Fun RaW fact, if you put a Monolith on a tall enough flying base, it becomes totally immune to being charged by anything with a base.

As for your second question, it depends what you mean by bunker. If you mean a building ala Planetstrike Bastions, then no because they are enemy models. If you mean just a raised hill like area that you've not defined any special rules for, then yes. There is no such thing as "impassible" terrain in 8th outside of house rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Fun RaW fact, if you put a Monolith on a tall enough flying base, it becomes totally immune to being charged by anything with a base.

That model would use a base so you could measure from the base?
If you dont have a base you measure from the hull.
I know there are some modells which have bases and get measured from the hull and there are some which have a base but you cant get to te base because of the hull.
I must think about "That Guy" who said i cant get in 1inch of his spawns because their tentacels were in the way.

Skullphoquer wrote:
That model would use a base so you could measure from the base?

No. The Monolith's 'Hovering' rule states that the Monolith always measures from the hull, even though it has a base.

Once again, BaconCatBug, GW has never said RAW=RAI. Stop posting that nonsense. It’s just a lie.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's stupid, but them's the rules and GW has said RaW = RaI.

Rules citation please.

It's clearly RaI, but may not be RaW!

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's stupid, but them's the rules and GW has said RaW = RaI.

Rules citation please.

I already cited the FAQ (which confirms the RAW) in the post you quoted.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's stupid, but them's the rules and GW has said RaW = RaI.

Rules citation please.

I already cited the FAQ (which confirms the RAW) in the post you quoted.

Where in the FAQ does is say RAW = RAI?

Because GW have stated that the RaW is correct, therefore it is intended to work that way? I am saying in this specific instance RaW is the same as RaI.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because GW have stated that the RaW is correct, therefore it is intended to work that way? I am saying in this specific instance RaW is the same as RaI.

No,sorry, you never had a "in this specific instance" above or, indeed, any other time you have said that RAW = RAI. If you're going to generally keep using this statement please show a reference for that applying generally, or when you use the statement always make sure to preface it with "in this instance".

And people say I have problems with "context". A thousand pardons good sir.

most FAQ documents wrote:Although we strive to ensure that our rules are perfect,
sometimes mistakes do creep in, or the intent of a rule
isn’t as clear as it might be.

GW have in fact, in almost all FAQ's, expressly stated that RAW does not always equal RAI. Very first sentence in many FAQ documents.