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.

kirsanth wrote:

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

its still gotta be put on the table, and my model is not the table. Now, I will grant you that normal terrain on the board is the table because it doesn't move and change as the game goes on. For all intents and purposes, IMHO, the table is all scenery and the solid surface that you have placed your models on. MY models are NOT the table, so he cannot start the DS procedure!!

And even if you want to allow this, then if we wanna go with that, you better land that 'Lith on some Grots, otherwise you are more than an inch from my base when you come in, which causes a mishap!

Galador wrote:its still gotta be put on the table, and my model is not the table.

So, you cannot place it on terrain?

Which includes open terrain.

Also, the restriction is against moving within an inch.

Initially, the model is placed.

kirsanth wrote:

Galador wrote:its still gotta be put on the table, and my model is not the table.

So, you cannot place it on terrain?

Which includes open terrain.

Now now, no taking only PART of what I said......

But even if you decide to let them place it on the models, being impassible terrain, it still has to be able to stay there. Show me how your going to balance a 'Lith on top of a Dark Eldar Warrior....

Also, you still haven't gotten to the part about if he lands on target and my model is taller than 1", what happens then??

Check my edit.

And if he doesn't scatter?

"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
A: Yes."

So I'm guessing Monoliths can't Deep-strike on top of other models because then they aren't trying to use their 'Terror from the Deep' rule (which they don't have)...

TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Secondly, please show where "Monoliths do not mishap" is included in the Necron codex. Found it? If you cannot, then you MUST agree that Monoliths must still Mishap and still roll to see what happens. If you do not agree you are NOT following the rules as written and the rules as intended (see above) and are defeated

If you agree it mishaps, then you must also agree it can only ignore the 1-2 result.

Please, lay out an actual rules argument from what is written. So far you have failed to do so, in breach of the tenets of this forum. Your poll is also HEAVILY BIASED and cannot be used to support your side, unless you are being intellectually dishonest of course. I suggest you redo the poll using the way Yakface words them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Indeed it is, please don't flame other users like this in future.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Secondly, please show where "Monoliths do not mishap" is included in the Necron codex. Found it? If you cannot, then you MUST agree that Monoliths must still Mishap and still roll to see what happens. If you do not agree you are NOT following the rules as written and the rules as intended (see above) and are defeated

If you agree it mishaps, then you must also agree it can only ignore the 1-2 result.

Please, lay out an actual rules argument from what is written. So far you have failed to do so, in breach of the tenets of this forum. Your poll is also HEAVILY BIASED and cannot be used to support your side, unless you are being intellectually dishonest of course. I suggest you redo the poll using the way Yakface words them.

reds8n wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:TK - first off, calling people unintelligent if they dont follow "RAI" (btw - the RAI argument was debunked aaaaages ago. GW have had 3 years to FAQ the Necron monolith, so "RAI" they want it to Mishap) IS an insult.

Indeed it is, please don't flame other users like this in future.

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.

Didnt call anyone unintelligent. I said myself and most intelligent people are RAI. Most can be 51% for all that matters. Please dont put words in my mouth. Didnt even bother reading your alls quick conclusions of my statement. Either way I retract my statement as it lead to a misunderstanding of its intent.

Back on topic please!

If you would like you can create a new poll and put the exact words in for both. Is it biased? Why yes it is, because I/myself and a very strong majority believe it that way and play it that way!

Except your only "proof" of this is through your poll which was biased to give that result. In other words - your statistically invalid method has produced a result, however as it was invalid to begin with you can not claim any result from it. None what so ever.

I have no need to put up a poll as I know what the rules actually say, and you have no counter to that rules argument. Absolutely none. Apparently 2 edition changes should not affect how the monolith plays at all - oh, except it has done. For another example see monoliths deepstriking, they cannot fire their Particle whip in 5th edition when they could in 4th

In addition: Your RAI argument has flaws, as was shown by myself and others. GW have had 3 years to change the FAQ to the way you "think" it should play, and yet havent done so. So a reasonable "RAI" is that they INTEND Monoliths to mishap.

Finally: you insulted people who dont believe your "RAI" is correct by calling them unintelligent. A mod agreed with me and others that you were being insulting.

I dont see the bias, this demonstrates something in life that irks me, its a Yes or No question, during a game "can i DS into that unit?"
"No"
"ok, moving on"

OR

"yes"
"ok, moving on"

ask before it happens, if they are going to argue, just agree and get on with the game.

and saying "Gw didn't FAQ it, so thats the intention" is nonsense, GW getting round to FAQ's is notoriously bad

There recently was an article in a magazine based on a survey about historical facts asked to a number of people in the UK. It resulted in 86% of the questioned people thinking the battle of helms klam was an actual historic event(it is a battle in lord of the rings, in case you don't know), while only 39% think that the vietnam war was a real war. Do still think polls prove anything?

This forum is about RAW, if you'd rather want to know to play it fair, ask that way. I do allow my necron opponents to deepstrike onto my units without rolling on the mishap table, but only because I belive this is how it should work. I know the written rule does not work that way.

Formosa - stating that GW intended Monoliths to ignore ALL mishaps is equally rediculous, as mishaps didnt exist when they wrote the rules.

Which is why RAI sucks as a debate method. It's as flawed as appealing to common sense - two peoples ideas of "RAI" can be very different to eachother.

Lol the poll is just things pointed in this thread. It is not the source of my conclusion. The 2 faq's that I looked at and the two other forums that I asked also said no mishap and so far a majority on this site say no mishap.

Bringing all of that together I can pick the select few out that seek out an advantage against a monolith based on vague words from almost a decade ago. If you need that to win that is fine. If you give me this much rift in a match I might just give you the win rather then play you and argue it out.

Tomb King wrote:Lol the poll is just things pointed in this thread. It is not the source of my conclusion. The 2 faq's that I looked at and the two other forums that I asked also said no mishap and so far a majority on this site say no mishap.

Bringing all of that together I can pick the select few out that seek out an advantage against a monolith based on vague words from almost a decade ago. If you need that to win that is fine. If you give me this much rift in a match I might just give you the win rather then play you and argue it out.

QFT

Tomb King wrote:Lol the poll is just things pointed in this thread. It is not the source of my conclusion. The 2 faq's that I looked at and the two other forums that I asked also said no mishap and so far a majority on this site say no mishap.

Bringing all of that together I can pick the select few out that seek out an advantage against a monolith based on vague words from almost a decade ago. If you need that to win that is fine. If you give me this much rift in a match I might just give you the win rather then play you and argue it out.

TK, I'm not arguing it, cause I let me Necron opponents here do it anyway, cause as I said, I love it when they bring it closer so I can kill it faster. But I still want to pose a RAW question to you, ok??? Simply because I want to see what you say on this.

Lets say you decided that you wanted to DS ont one of my objectives, which has a unit of my Warriors on it, ok??? Now then, I even go so far as to let you set your Monolith on top of my models and you can balance it, as ber the Deep Strike rules, and the skimmers stopping on impassable terrain rules. You then roll your scatter, and you land dead on target. This means that you would be coming in at the exact spot you chose, right?? Now we have to figure out if your Monolith is within 1" of my models for your ability to push my units out of the way, right? Well RAW, according to the definition on pg 3 of the BRB you must measure from the two closest points of the bases, or the hull of a vehicle. so a measurment from the top of the base of my models would give you....(hold on measuring my average warrior height real fast) 1.5" for an old Warrior, and 1.75" for my new ones. Neither of the two that I measures are specifically modeled(I have some that have their rifles pointed in the air, which adds about .5" to them), they are just run of the mil; normal models.

According to RAW, you are not within 1" of my models, hence, I don't have to move them. Which means you have DS'ed into impassable terrain, and you misshap. Do you get destroyed if you roll on the mishap table??? Technically, yes you can be, as your not within 1" of the enemy, so you can be destroyed.

Now, would I ever do this?? Hell no, because that is way to nitpicky for anyone to try and pull off. I simply enjoy a good debate about things that don't quite mesh and finding out other players reactions and thoughts. I don't debate rules during a game, I do it after. I am very quick to go for a die roll on a dsagreement, and discuss it after the game.

Hopefully you see where I am coming from, and that RAW it supports what I said. I would love to hear your thoughts on this, and eagerly await you and kirsanth's replies, plus anyone else who has an opinion on this!

Everyone can calm down now. Warnings have been given. Lets get back to Dakka Rule #1: BE POLITE gnetlemen. That includes personal attacks, questioning posters' intelligence and collateral slants that are also attacks.

Remember its a simple rule. Don't be a dick or the Mods will be a dick to you.

ChrisCP wrote:"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
A: Yes."

So I'm guessing Monoliths can't Deep-strike on top of other models because then they aren't trying to use their 'Terror from the Deep' rule (which they don't have)...

Monoliths can Deepstrike onto a model like everything else that can deepstrike, but you are correct that it cannot use TftD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galador wrote:And if he doesn't scatter?

The rules cover that. Mawlocks have rules for it, as do Monoliths.

Unless the model/unit has a similar rule, it will mishap.

Pods will mishap if you are so assinine to deliberately aim for a unit as well.

kirsanth wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule?
A: Yes."

So I'm guessing Monoliths can't Deep-strike on top of other models because then they aren't trying to use their 'Terror from the Deep' rule (which they don't have)...

Monoliths can Deepstrike onto a model like everything else that can deepstrike, but you are correct that it cannot use TftD.

I addressed the issue of deep striking on top of enemy models on the first page. I've re-posted it below:

Grakmar wrote:

Tomb King wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Too true

Rear is even better, especially on vindicator walls like my usual SW opponent likes building

Although do you have to be able to place the model before rolling to scatter? Or can you just pick a point?

That's a debatable point. The rulebook tells you that the first step in deep striking is to place the model on the table. You then roll for scatter.

There's 3 ways to interpret this:

The overly literal approach: You have to be able to physically place the model onto the table. If there is anything between your model and the table, you can't deep strike there. This includes pieces of area terrain, as they aren't the actual table. If you're playing with a battle board, tough luck, the entire table is blocked.

The "I'm an a hole" approach: You have to physically place your model onto the table. If your opponent's models are in the way, you just ignore them and place your model onto the board. Yes, this means the rulebook is granting you permission to crush your opponent's minis into dust.

The reasonable approach: You have to place the model onto to table. But, your opponents minis are in the same location you want to place your model. So, you point to "wobbly model syndrome" and both you and your opponent pretend the two models are occupying the same space. You then proceed to play a fun game where everyone wins.

Grakmar wrote:I addressed the issue of deep striking on top of enemy models on the first page. I've re-posted it below:

I think I have basically agreed with it, repeatedly. But I was asked again; so, me being me, responded.



Though you did explain it better than I, this time.

kirsanth wrote:

Grakmar wrote:I addressed the issue of deep striking on top of enemy models on the first page. I've re-posted it below:

I think I have basically agreed with it, repeatedly. But I was asked again; so, me being me, responded.



Though you did explain it better than I, this time.

so respond to the res of what I wrote for RAW, wanna see what you say to it!

You are saying your models are not terrain.

I pointed out a rule saying they are.

What else did you want?

Or are you suggesting that your model is not part of your model and thus not restricting movement?

kirsanth wrote:You are saying your models are not terrain.

I pointed out a rule saying they are.

What else did you want?

Or are you suggesting that your model is not part of your model and thus not restricting movement?

roll up to what I posted last time I quoted Tomb King, and read the situation I posted. Maybe your last response was for that situation, and I misunderstood. Just let me know if it was, and if I did, sorry for that!

Edit: Its the post right before that picture frazzled put up.

TK - how are they "vague" words?

They are very clear and very simple: if you DS within 1" of an enemy model, instead of being destroyed you move the models out the way

Now, does that let you bypass miishap? No, because it does not mention mishap

So you still roll mishap, and ONLY IF you roll a 1 - 2 does the special rule kick in.

Those are the actual rules.

I think he is wondering how to measure that 1"

The measuring rules could allow you to leave a model onto of another one, if WMS and the movement section are glossed over and only the measuring distances is used.

This actually happens somewhat often with Valkyries, for example.

kirsanth wrote:I think he is wondering how to measure that 1"

The measuring rules could allow you to leave a model onto of another one, if WMS and the movement section are glossed over and only the measuring distances is used.

This actually happens somewhat often with Valkyries, for example.

you can do it with your friendly models, sure, but not with enemie models, and as far as Valkyries, yeah, they are higher cause of their stands, but you would use the stand to determine distance at that point, IMHO.

Galador wrote:you can do it with your friendly models, sure, but not with enemie models, and as far as Valkyries, yeah, they are higher cause of their stands, but you would use the stand to determine distance at that point, IMHO.

Not according to the rules. . . .

Page 2

The reading cat is correct, the two big skimmers only use the base for assault, (dis)embarking and disrupting/capturing objects.

Jidmah wrote:The reading cat is correct, the two big skimmers only use the base for assault, (dis)embarking and disrupting/capturing objects.

lol new fight different thread. Your base cant be within 1" of an enemy base(.)

As for the comment above. I believe the model has to be placed first.


For the RAW side of the argument. Not to be interpreted as an insult for the thin skinned. lol. Have you all ever heard of the U.S. Constitution and the RAI in the form of the Judicial Branch?

Tomb King wrote:Your base cant be within 1" of an enemy base(.)

Nope. Models cannot MOVE within an inch. Placement is not mentioned, and the move is not determined until DS is resolved.
Editing to add: Unless you think the scatter is part of the move, but then you have a lot of other issues.

Tomb King wrote:Have you all ever heard of the U.S. Constitution and the RAI in the form of the Judicial Branch?

It is oft asserted that law is more RAI than RAW.