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.

Stonerhino wrote:

time wizard wrote:
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 find it interesting that you would say it would "mishap as normal".
I agree that it would. And when does it "mishap as normal"? This is found on page 95 of the main rulebook.
So if the Monolith would land off the table it would mishap, and if it landed in impassable terrain or on top of a friendly model it would mishap, but if it landed on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, suddenly it no longer mishaps?
So you ae going to use part of the mishap rule, the part you like, but not the entire rule?

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

Suffering a mishap is not unrelated to the discussion. A few posts ago you said,

Stonerhino wrote: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.

The Monolith rule does not override the mishap at all. All it addresses is one of three possible results (destroyed, misplaced or delayed) of 4 potential mishaps.

Stonerhino wrote: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.

You are putting the cart before the horse.
If the Monolith lands on top of or within 1" of an enemy unit, a mishap has occurred.
Now you roll on the mishap table.
If you roll 3 or 4, the Monolith is misplaced.
If you roll a 5 or 6, the Monolith goes back in reserve.

Now, if you roll a 1 or 2, the mishap table says the Monolith is destroyed.
But the Necron Codex has a rule in the Monolith entry that says the Monolith is not destroyed if it lands on top of or within 1" of an enemy unit, instead move the enemy unit the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith.
So the Monolith did in fact suffer a mishap and it was indeed made to suffer a destroyed result.
But again, it has a special rule to override the specific damage of the destroyed result and tells you what to do INSTEAD.

Stonerhino wrote:Then you should try PMing Yakface and ask why the Inat FAQs are against you as well.

I shall. I'll give him a link to my post and see what he says.

Honestly I'm more interested in the question I asked than the one that's currently being debated. I believe that RaW, without the INAT FAQ, time wizard is right. However, I have still not seen a convincing answer to the actual questions I asked. If everyone doesn't mind, the discussion you're having has been debated before, and is generally unrelated to the problem I posed.

Kitzz wrote:However, I have still not seen a convincing answer to the actual questions I asked.

Sorry Kitzz, you're absolutely correct!

In answer to that, there is no specific mechanic listed or referred to in the Monolith rule that addresses exactly how to move the models that would end up underneath it.

So we would have to look elsewhere to see if there is a similar situation and a rule that covers how to resolve it.

In your picture, if the Monolith were not landing on the models in question, but tank shocking them, then the rule on page 68 is very clear.

"If some models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position...these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving as least 1" between them ane the vehicle and maintaining unit coherency."

Even units that emergency disembark from a transport vehicle must disembark within coherency.

It seems logical that when a unit is being forced to move, that compulsory movement must still maintain unit coherency.

It's at times like this when I get frustrated by things I read in the rulebook. Of course the relevant part of the rulebook would probably be the "Random and Compulsory Movement" section, which says that those types of movement will be discussed later...which they never are.

The biggest issue here is that using the INAT ruling, you can significantly mess with certain types of units by breaking their coherency and forcing them to move back together.

On the other hand, here's something even more interesting to think about: Which player controls the movement? If it's the non-Necron player, they might be getting a free 6" move with a good part of their squad. If it's the Necron player, there's the coherency issue.

Either ruling can have large implications, especially if playing by the INAT rules.

time wizard wrote:It seems logical that when a unit is being forced to move, that compulsory movement must still maintain unit coherency.

This is also supported by the ruling of Lash Demon Princes.

Edit: From the CSM GW FAQ (emphasis mine):

Q. Can you use Lash of Submission to move models
around within a unit and re-arrange them? Can models
be moved out of unit coherency? Can a unit be moved
out of combat? If a unit is moved into dangerous
terrain, do they have to test? If jump infantry are
moved, are they assumed to be using their packs or
walking? Can a unit be shoved right off the table, or
into impassable terrain?

A. The move created by this power is executed exactly
like a normal move, except that it’s not slowed by
difficult terrain. It follows that, for example:
• the 2D6" distance rolled is the unit’s maximum
move, as normal, and models in the unit can move up to
that distance or less.
• models cannot be moved out of coherency.
• units cannot be moved out of combat.
• dangerous terrain tests must be taken as
normal.
• jump infantry may choose to move either with
their packs or on foot (moving player’s choice).
• units cannot enter impassable terrain, leave the
table or be moved closer than 1" to enemy models.

You're told to move them. The only rules you have which tell you how models move tells youy they must maintain coherency

Doesn't the monolith rule say you move them "the minimum distance necessary to make room for the monolith"? meaning you can't move 5" if 2" will do. And while you still have to maintain coherency it is entirely possible to move every model a different distance but still maintain the "minimum distance moved" rule.

Kevin949 wrote:Doesn't the monolith rule say you move them "the minimum distance necessary to make room for the monolith"? meaning you can't move 5" if 2" will do. And while you still have to maintain coherency it is entirely possible to move every model a different distance but still maintain the "minimum distance moved" rule.

Of course, but if one model was 2" from 1 side and another was 2" from another side, you wouldn't move them in 2 different directions to make room for the Monolith leaving them 8" apart.

You would move the first one 3" (2" to get out from under the Monolith plus 1" to be out of base contact) and then move the other 5" (4" to get out from under and 1" to be out of base contact with the Monolith).

This would be moving each model the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith in the first place.

don_mondo wrote: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.

What cherry picking? I'm fully embracing the RAW: The codex states the Monolith is not destroyed when it lands on/near enemy models. (Sweet!! You rock Monolith!!) Instead, the enemy models are moved out of the way. Note, the rules doesn't state "if the monolith is destroyed" just that it's not destroyed. The "not destroyed" part of the rule is now moot and has become descriptive narrative much like the Monolith being ponderous.

The Monolith does not have a special rule that deals with landing off the table so it would mishap per the deepstrike rule.

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

No, I don't agree with every ruling of the INAT. However, I do respect that others have thought long and hard about the various rules and have formed an intelligent decision. I'm not saying I'm right because the INAT says I'm right, I'm saying others have looked at this issue and have come to the same conclusion I have.

The Monolith Mishaps as normal.

IF it is destroyed it instead moves models out of the way.

Otherwise you are cherry picking when to mishap and when not to. You have NO BLANKET EXEMPTION from mishap. None.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The Monolith Mishaps as normal.

IF it is destroyed it instead moves models out of the way.

The Monolith rule does NOT that "if" the Monolith is destroyed move the models, it states the Monolith is not destroyed AND move the models.

No, it really doesnt. It says that INSTEAD OF being destroyed, it moves models.
And the only way it can be destroyed is via mishapping. You are still ignoring "mishap" with absolutely no rules basis, no whatsoever, for doing so.

time wizard wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:Doesn't the monolith rule say you move them "the minimum distance necessary to make room for the monolith"? meaning you can't move 5" if 2" will do. And while you still have to maintain coherency it is entirely possible to move every model a different distance but still maintain the "minimum distance moved" rule.

Of course, but if one model was 2" from 1 side and another was 2" from another side, you wouldn't move them in 2 different directions to make room for the Monolith leaving them 8" apart.

You would move the first one 3" (2" to get out from under the Monolith plus 1" to be out of base contact) and then move the other 5" (4" to get out from under and 1" to be out of base contact with the Monolith).

This would be moving each model the minimum distance necessary to make room for the Monolith in the first place.

I'm not disputing the coherency bit.

I notice now that my quoted text didn't show up for some reason. I was actually responding to kitzz's post about who gets to move the models out of the way and them getting a "free" 6 inch move. Which isn't the case.

Kevin949 wrote:
I notice now that my quoted text didn't show up for some reason. I was actually responding to kitzz's post about who gets to move the models out of the way and them getting a "free" 6 inch move. Which isn't the case.

I agree that being forced to move is not a "free" move since you can easily end up in a position or location that is very bad for your unit in particular and you battle plan in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it really doesnt. It says that INSTEAD OF being destroyed, it moves models.
And the only way it can be destroyed is via mishapping. You are still ignoring "mishap" with absolutely no rules basis, no whatsoever, for doing so.

I'm not ignoring any rules. The models the Monolith would have landed on or near are moved out of the way because the Monolith's rules state such.

Regardless, this argument is just going in circles. Discuss it with your Necron opponent before the game. On my tables, the Monolith doesn't mishap in such situations.

Yes, you are ignoring rules: you are deciding to ignore mishap. You have no reason to ignore mishap, as the monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models - it rolls mishap, and then AFTER it does this it is only destroyed on a 1 or 2

Yes, this is going round in circles: one side has rules, the other doesnt.

Wow, massive RAW discussion. Why doesn't everyone just pay RAI? And i personally think the models can be moved out of coherency Kitzz, cause it says to move the minimum distance required to get out of the monolith's way. If it's equidistant, than the controlling player chooses, but if it isn't it should be obvious. Shortest, most direct INDIVIDUAL move. Sorry for the capitals, can't remember how to make it bold...

Sabet - nice opinion, lacks rules.

You move. The only way ou can move is to use the rules for movement, and those require you to maintain coherency

fair enough, but that's how i and my FLGS play it. was just putting another opinion out there. course, were not very strict, and most of the time i just tell my opponent to move his models out of the way but only in friendly games. in anything more important thats how my FLGS does it.

EDIT: I'm the necron player at my store.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you are ignoring rules: you are deciding to ignore mishap. You have no reason to ignore mishap, as the monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models - it rolls mishap, and then AFTER it does this it is only destroyed on a 1 or 2

Yes, this is going round in circles: one side has rules, the other doesnt.

No, I'm not ignoring the rules. I've stated several times why I'm not ignoring the rules. We both agree the Monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models (as you just stated). However, it's at this point we diverge. You state the model mishaps and if the result is "destroyed" the Monolith's rule kicks in. I state the Monolith's rules kicks in prior to mishapping thus the enemy is moved out of the way. This is what's EXACTLY stated in the codex.

No, you are most definitely ignoring mishap. You must be, becauae the monoliths rules have no mention of "instead of rolling for mishap"

So the sequence goes:

1) mono scatters to within 1" of the enemy. Nothing happens to the monlith at this point, so the monolith rule about moving them cannot kick in
2) you roll mishap <-this is the bit you are ignoring, with absolutely no rules backing. noone whatsoever
3) if you rolla destroyed result the monolith rule kicks in

Your sequence is simply 1) mono lands near enemy 2) you dont destroy it and you move the models out the way, yet you have no reason to "not destroy" the monolith, as you're ignoring the only rule that actuallyt DOES destroy the monolith.

So yes, of course you are ignoring rules, you are stating that INSTEAD of rolling mishap, which is the only way the mono can be destroyed, you skip straight ahead to assuming the monolith would be destroyed - because only if the monolith would be destroyed could you move models out of the way.

Your way has no rules backing. Absolutely none, and it never will

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you are most definitely ignoring mishap. You must be, becauae the monoliths rules have no mention of "instead of rolling for mishap"

So the sequence goes:

1) mono scatters to within 1" of the enemy. Nothing happens to the monlith at this point, so the monolith rule about moving them cannot kick in

What? The rules explicitly state two things when the Monolith lands near the enemy: the Monolith is not destroyed and move the enemy. The rule doesn't state IF the Monolith is destroyed move the models, just the monolith isn't destroyed and the enemy models are moved.

Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrived. - Codex: Necron, page 21

This is a statement of fact not a condition. No "if the Monolith is destroyed..." or other such nonsense. Granted, this fact has more relevance in previous editions of the rules, it is just a fact none the less.

Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance necessary to make the space for the Monolith. - Codex: Necron, page 21

So, instead of being destroyed when arriving, the offending models are moved out of the way of the Monolith. Again, this is different than saying "IF the Monolith is destroyed...." Subtle, but distinctive.

So, why arent you rolling mishap?

Please show the RULE that means you dont roll mishap. Waiting.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you are ignoring rules: you are deciding to ignore mishap. You have no reason to ignore mishap, as the monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models - it rolls mishap, and then AFTER it does this it is only destroyed on a 1 or 2

Yes, this is going round in circles: one side has rules, the other doesnt.

No, I'm not ignoring the rules. I've stated several times why I'm not ignoring the rules. We both agree the Monolith is NOT destroyed by landing near enemy models (as you just stated). However, it's at this point we diverge. You state the model mishaps and if the result is "destroyed" the Monolith's rule kicks in. I state the Monolith's rules kicks in prior to mishapping thus the enemy is moved out of the way. This is what's EXACTLY stated in the codex.

You've stated it, but you are indeed ignoring rules, both rulebook and codex. You also continue to misquote the Monolith rule. Nothing in the codex states that you ignore mishaps. So no, that's not "exactly" what is stated in the codex. I've posted the real text a couple of times already, and yet you persist in ignoring the rules in favor of your own interpretation of what it doesn't say.

One: It's not my own interpretation. I am not alone in this interpretation. As I've pointed out, the INAT also interprets the rules the same way.

Two: I don't know of any other way to detail that not being destroyed is NOT a condition of the Monolith rules, it is a characteristic of the Monolith.

Three: Being directly destroyed by landing near the enemy is an artifact of previous rules. The BRB FAQ states when such codex rules exists to ignore them.

Four: The Monolith rules states what to do when the Monolith lands near enemy models, move the models.

There is nothing left to say. You believe how you believe and I as such.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Three: Being directly destroyed by landing near the enemy is an artifact of previous rules. The BRB FAQ states when such codex rules exists to ignore them.

Okay, that's good. We'll ignore the rule that when the monolith lands within 1" of enemy models it is not destroyed.

Which leaves us using the mishap rule and table, so if the Monolith lands 1" from an enemy unit, it suffers a mishap and if it rolls a 1 or 2, it is destroyed.

That works.

As above: you cannot have it both ways. If you're ignoring the "it is not destroyed" line, then when you roll mishap it is destroyed.

You are still ignoring mishap, and you dont have a rule allowing you to ignore mishap. Additionally moving models out of the way IS A CONDITION of the first rule - INSTEAD tells you this. So, if you are ignoring the first bit (monolith isnt destroyed) you CANNOT ever ever ever activate the second bit.

The monolith rule firmly states when it arrives it is not destroyed and the offending enemy models are moved out of the way.

Instead is NOT a condition, not even remotely. The is NO condition state used within the Monolith Deep Strike rule just factual statements. The fact the Monolith does is not destroyed when it arrives is moot.

TheGreatAvatar wrote: The fact the Monolith does is not destroyed when it arrives is moot.

The fact that the Monolith is not destroyed if there are enemy models in the way is the key component.

What you keep ignoring is, what would make the Monolith be destroyed?

The answer to that has been stated over and over.

In order for the Monolith rule to work the way you want, GW could very easily issue an errata that says;

In the Monolith deep strike rule (page 21) change "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." to "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it does not suffer a mishap if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives."

But guess what? No such errata was ever made. So instead of being destroyed like every other model in the game at the time the rule was written, the Monolith now suffers a mishap, like every other model in the game.

But unlike every other model in the game, if the Monolith rolls a 1 or 2 on the mishap table, then we INSTEAD move the enemy models out of the way.

But this advantage isn't enough for you. You want to have your mishap and ignore it too. But that's not how the Monolith rule works.

And FWIW, I play Necrons from time to time too, and I don't play the Monolith like you propose.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The monolith rule firmly states when it arrives it is not destroyed and the offending enemy models are moved out of the way.

Instead is NOT a condition, not even remotely. The is NO condition state used within the Monolith Deep Strike rule just factual statements. The fact the Monolith does is not destroyed when it arrives is moot.

"Instead" is tying the latter to thge former - a condition. "Instead" of being destroyed you move models out of the way. The monolith is only destroyed on a 1 or 2 on the mishap chart. On any other result the monolith is not destroyed, therefore you do not move models out of the way - you havent fulfilled the first condition, thereofre the INSTEAD cannot take place.

RULE that says you ignore mishap. Or concede.