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.

Being destroyed when landing on enemy models during a Deepstrike move is a relic of previous rules. This much is fact. (see the previous rules for specific references)

The current Codex: Necron states a Monolith is not destroyed if it deepstrikes within 1" of enemy models. This much is fact. (page 21 of the Codex: Necron)

The current rules state a Deepstriking unit consults the Mishap table for various mishap reasons one of them being landing within 1" models. This much is fact. (page 95, BRB)

The current Codex: Necron states the enemy models that the Monolith would land on are moved out of the way of the Monolith. This much is fact. (page 21 of the Codex: Necron)

The current rules state in the event of contradictions in rules between a codex and the rulebook, the codex rules take precedence. This much is fact. (page 98, BRB)

The BGB FAQ states codex rules that are relics and reference previous rules no longer in effect are dismissed. This much is fact. (page 6, BRB FAQ)

So....
Which rule do you consult when a Monolith deepstikes within 1" of the enemy, the Mishap rule or the Codex: Necron? Based on page 98 of the BRB, the rules from the Codex: Necron are used. Thus, using the codex rule, the Monolith that deepstrikes within 1" of the enemy is not destroyed (a moot point now) and the enemy models are moved out of the way of the Monolith.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

The BGB FAQ states codex rules that are relics and reference previous rules no longer in effect are dismissed. This much is fact. (page 6, BRB FAQ)
.

Correct, it says that special rules that CLEARLY have no function are to be ignored. Not part of the rule. if you use this arguement then the entire Deepstrike special rule will be ignored (as this is under the deepstrike special rule in necron codex). You do not get to pick part of a rule to use.

ITT: a lot of upset necron players shoving their fingers in their ears and making noise.

kill dem stunties wrote:ITT: a lot of upset necron players shoving their fingers in their ears and making noise.

And to prevent comments like this, we have forums rules. Observe them or perish.

And while it is of course not perfect, INAT addresses this issue quite clearly. Yes, yes....bunches of people hate INAT. But this *is* Dakka. Where INAT goes with the territory.

No dash :(

Mannahnin wrote:As noted, GW's FAQs are given authority by being issued by GW, and widely adhered to by players around the world; including at every GW tournament, and virtually every independant tournament. If you read the "Tenets of You Make Da Call" thread stickied at the top of the forum, you will see that they are considered official rules for the purposes of this forum.

The INAT FAQ is not "just" a set of personal opinions. It is a collection of rulings debated and collectively agreed upon by a group of experienced tournament players and organizers, who have been assembled by one of the world's preeminent tournaments. Rulings are discussed exhaustively and with a specific rationale, and voted on.

That being said, it still does not come from GW so is not considered official for the purposes of this forum. What authority it possesses comes from the good reputation and integrity of the people involved, from the size and prominence of Adepticon, and from the number of other tournaments which make use of it.

Just one of many examples of the INAT use being shot down by the Mod/Admin Team.

I for one am done with this arguement as I'm not budging but if you'd like to make up and change rules on a case by case basis w/e.

At my store where the TO and I do all the rulings this has been brought up before and guess what ... it gos to the mishap table, becuase destroyed only happens 1/3 times ... it's not my fault your archaic codex is worded poorly and still works with 5th ed ...

kill dem stunties wrote:ITT: a lot of upset necron players shoving their fingers in their ears and making noise.

Thank you for that insightful contribution to the discussion.

1. I would assert that the rules are a series of proscribed actions to deal with gameplay situations. I.e. If a model is shooting, roll a die.
2. "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." This is fluff up to the comma. " it is not destroyed" is the action to be taken in a gameplay situation " if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are no other caveats to the the gameplay situation presented.
3. "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." This is an action to replace the destroy action in the prior sentence. Since it is replacing the " do not destroy" action, it must be done in accordance with the gameplay situation presented previously. This gameplay situation is "if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are still no additional caveats.

Exactly. But it is only destroyed by models being within an inch if it rolls 1/3 of the odds on the mishap table.

Which, at the end of the day, is damn good.

TGA - you were fine until you separated out "move models 1" away" when that is a result you take INSTEAD OF being destroyed.

None of your parsing can avoid that "Instead of" is the key phrase and what you are attempting to remove.

You move models 1" out of the way INSTEAD OF being destroyed

When do you get destroyed? By rolling on the mishap table and rolling a 1 or 2. If you roll either result you are NOT destroyed by landing within 1" but delayed or misplaced. As neither of these satisfy the REQUIREMENT "destroyed" ytou CANNOT perform the "instead of" action.

Just to muddy the waters and for my own perverse joy at seeing all the angry and disgusted replies...

If it is the last turn and you roll on the mishap table and get a unit delayed result the model is usually delayed. By going by the ever so clear rules, the Monolith would be placed "instead of being destroyed" and enemy models would be moved out of the way.

Huh?

No, the monolith would go into reserves. The GAMe ending is what then destroys the monolith.

But the cause of the roll is an enemy within 1 inch, and the result is the destruction of the monolith. Therefore the monolith special rule comes into play. The monolith is placed on the table rather than into reserves where it would have been destroyed.

The rules are silent on how the monolith is destroyed, only that it can not be destroyed due to enemy models being within 1 inch. Therefore it is logical to assume that any result of destroyed is countered by the monolith's special rule, regardless of origin.

No it isnt. The monolith mishaps and is put into reserves.

Models in reserve when the game ends are destroyed. It is not destroyed BY being within 1", it is destroyed by the game ending.

The two are separate. Your logic is flawed.

My logic is perfect... the cause of the mishap is an enemy unit being within 1 inch. The result is the monolith being destroyed. The method of destruction is being in reserve when the game ends.

Ergo, special rule comes into play and the monolith is not destroyed, but placed on the table.

Also, as stated in my first post on this, its not a serious point its just for my fun. The reason for this is I found the tone of this whole thread a little bit too serious and just wanted to mess with it.

A monolith deep striking and landing within 1 inch of an enemy model happens so rarely, that if/when it does why not just go with the flow of the game and decide based on house rules. If you and your opponent can't agree then get a 3rd vote or just flip a coin...

Your logic is flawed as you are conflating two separate events caused by two separate rules.

Your "logic" would require that everything in the game is caused by the first dice roll to determine sides.

ok fine, so tossing a coin appears to be out, I call heads by the way...

The monolith special rule specifies only that a monolith is not destroyed if there are enemy models within 1 inch when it arrives by deep strike.

It does not mention any subsequent requirements, such as being destroyed as a result of a specific roll on the mishap table.

The logical conclussion is simply that if there were enemy models within 1 inch when the monolith arrived and it would have been destroyed, it will not in fact be destroyed.

You have made an assumption that the monolith being destroyed because it was in reserves at the end of the game is a seperate event. However, the cause of it being in reserves was that there were enemy models within 1 inch when it arrived.

This logic does not apply to everything in the game as it is one specific rule which is being discussed.

And logic is not flawed simply because it produces an absurd result. Yes what I am proposing is absurd, I was well aware of this when I proposed it and it is also why I proposed it.

And by the way the coin landed on its edge, so it looks like either interpretation could apply...

By the way where do people stand on the issue that if models have to be moved out of the way, rather than being squished by a big falling monolith do they count as being tank shocked? (and no I don't really care, just another absurd loophole that the special rule and general rules don't cover)

Given you didnt declare a tank shock, no they dont....
It is a separate event as the cause of the "destroy" is not being within 1". Just being in reserves does that.

Your logic is flawed.

You're kind of missing the point here...

Over analysis of the rules just sucks all the fun out of the game. We can sit here all day and argue about who's logic is flawed (mine isn't by the way, its just absurd, subtle difference), but my point is simple.

Its an old codex written on old rules, you can argue all day about how to interpret and apply those rules but it doesn't matter as long as both sides agree and they enjoy the game.

By the way, I did declare a tank shock when I rolled the scatter dice and saw that I would have to "move" the monolith from the intended position :p (...and yes I am still being absurd)

Except you cannot declare a tank shock, as you tank shock instead of moving normally. Deepstrike is not moving normally. NEither is the scatter actual movement.

2 areas where you are wrong.

Also, you make have missed the point of a RULES forum. This is not a game being played right now. THis is outside of a game, and a place to discuss the actual rules and how they are interpreted. Feel free to not post if you feel that discussing rules not in a game somehow sucks the fun out of playing the game.....

I never for a moment thought this was about a game which was being played (which kind of makes the whole dicussion even odder, as its about a potential arguement which may come up if someone decides to do something and it goes wrong??).

And yes I know this is a rules forum to discuss the rules, but again its not actually happened so where is the actual need for such a serious and indepth discussion?? I still think that this point is a little bit too obscure and pedantic, and that over analysis of the rules sucks the fun out of actually playing the game (why not actually play test the different interpretations and see if it makes any difference, or if this would ever actually come up in practice??).

And once again, the tank shock thing is a totally absurd proposition, merely posed alongside my earlier absurd proposition, to highlight the above points. And I can't believe you even bothered to comment on it

And I have unsubscribed from this thread but please carry on without me. My point is, always has been and remains that it doesn't really matter. Just flip a coin or have a roll off (and don't worry if you both roll the same number, you can always re-roll) or declare a house rule.

grotblaster wrote:
1. I would assert that the rules are a series of proscribed actions to deal with gameplay situations. I.e. If a model is shooting, roll a die.
2. "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." This is fluff up to the comma. " it is not destroyed" is the action to be taken in a gameplay situation " if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are no other caveats to the the gameplay situation presented.
3. "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." This is an action to replace the destroy action in the prior sentence. Since it is replacing the " do not destroy" action, it must be done in accordance with the gameplay situation presented previously. This gameplay situation is "if there are enemies within 1" when it arrives". There are still no additional caveats.

kirsanth wrote:Exactly. But it is only destroyed by models being within an inch if it rolls 1/3 of the odds on the mishap table.

The gameplay situation being addressed is not "if there are enemy within 1" when it arives AND it would be destroyed." At the time that would have been redundant, but it doesn't change the fact that the actions we are instructed to take are in response to "enemy within 1". When "do not destroy" is replaced with "move models", the prohibition of destroying is not added as a precursor to taking that action.

Examples:
Do not set your car on fire, if you arrive at the store. Instead, park your car. When do we park the car? When we get to the store, not only when we get to the store and it is about to burst into flames.

Lord - it was an absurd incorrect example, presumably making your other example not only absurd but incorrect.

Thanks for confirming you were simply trolling the thread.

Yes, it has come up. Do you assume noone deepstrikes monoliths, and that they dont do so within 12" of an enemy model?

That analogy is misleading as the original rule is based off of other conditions (main rulebook) Your analogy would be better suited if it were this.

Condition 1. When parking your car if it is next to another car roll a d6 to see if it explodes.

When parking your car at the mall it will not explode when parked next to another car, instead, move the other cars away.

Your analogies will not work because they have no conditions set before them such as the actual rules do.

grotblaster wrote:
Examples:
Do not set your car on fire, if you arrive at the store. Instead, park your car. When do we park the car? When we get to the store, not only when we get to the store and it is about to burst into flames.

I see a considerable difference between setting your car on fire and having it burst into flames.
One is a voluntary action the other a potentially catastrophic event.

Regardless, the example has no bearing on the discussion.

Try this instead.
There is a "No Parking" sign at the store.
Everyone who parks there will get a ticket.
Your car is different.
If you park there you will not get a ticket, instead the sign will be moved.

Now, will we moved the sign if you don't park there?
No, moving the sign is conditional upon you, and only you, parking there.

That's how a conditional expression works.

Every model in the game that deep strikes within 1" of an enemy model suffers a mishap, including the monolith.
Every model that deep strikes within 1" of an enemy model and rolls a '1' or '2' is destroyed, except the monolith.
Instead of the monolith being destroyed, move the enemy models.

The action of moving the enemy model occurs only if the monolith suffers a specific destroyed result.

And those conditions cannot be met unless the core deep strike rules have been followed.

Frankly, I am running out of ways to explain this simple concept.

The rule in the codex is replacing a rule in the rulebook. Like most chages to core rules in the codex, the rules are saying if a certain condition is met, follow the rules found here instead of any other.

My understanding is that you and others feel the condition is "if the monolith lands within 1" of an enemy model AND would be destroyed". This understanding can not come from the main rulebook, because these rules are not found there.

The rule section of the first sentence reads: "it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". What is the condition in this first sentence that triggers the instructions ot be followed? "if there are enemy within 1"." There is no other condition described.

The rules of the second section read: "Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary...." So instead means in lieu, or replacing. What are these instructions replacing in the preceeding sentence? Since it is describing instructions to follow and not a condition to meet, I can only assume it means to replace the prior instructions. That prior instruction is "it is not destroyed."

Now by replacing the prior instruction with the new instructions we end up with "move models that are in the way... if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives". The prior instructions do not suddenly become part of the condition that triggers this rule replacement. There is nothing in the rulebook, codex, or elsewhere to indicate that the replaced instructions should be included in the condition.

except it cannot be destroyed unless you involve the mishap chart.

which is where your argument still falls down, entirely. You attempt to ignore "destroyed" by pretending it isnt important, only the within 1" is. Except that isnt how the rules or the english language work.

"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

grotblaster wrote:"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

The step before that matters more.

What is required to destroy a deepstriking unit?

kirsanth wrote:

grotblaster wrote:"it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives".
In the above sentence fragment, what is the condition/circumstance under which the monolith "is not destroyed"?

The step before that matters more.

What is required to destroy a deepstriking unit?

Lots of things. Mystic shots, bad mishap rolls, failure to come out of reserve prior to game end. The condition listed in the rule though is not "if it is destroyed when it arrives." You are inferring that the condition implies impending destruction because it prohibits destruction. This is not how it is written though.