Necron Monolith, Deep Strike and the RaI

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.

**BlackTalos**

I do realise that the Skimmer + Deep Strike has be ground to dust by now, and i do not want to re-open the full RaW debate (if Possible)

For the Raw:
We know MIshap is immediately after scatter, and before any move / DS is not moving, etc
We can't claim the skimmer "is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."
This is not (really) in contention.

I'm just having one of those, "hey but it was like this, why no more?" moments:

Necron Monoliths 4TH Edition (5th?):
It used to be - I DEEP STRIKE HERE - you shunt all of your models outta the way - Pulverise the enemy you've landed in the middle of with D6 shots per unit close (or it was good, just can't recall the whole thing).

Then i went on my "GW hiatus" for a few years and came back on the drop of 6th.

What happened to the Monolith Deep Striking like a beast?
In my FLGS, we have a player that will "always successfully Deep Strike" , and i now realise he is using the RaW above and the very thing Dakka Ruled "against".

I went along with Dakka's RaW descision and was thinking it all made sense by RaW, but just now the "monolith could do it before" has dawned on me.
So more of a RaI, and finally getting to my question:

Is the rule:

If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.

Meant for the Monolith to play how it used to play?
Arriving by Deep Strike and just getting in where it can? (the minimum distance)

My main RaI reasoning:
They've kept the monolith as a Skimmer, and with the Deep Strike Rule. Surely they meant for it to work as it always had?
Also what does the rule i quoted serve in the game?
Like: Anything actually making use of that rule (apart from the monolith wanting to play how it always had?)

**Zimko**

I think RAI is that skimmers are immune to Mishapping from landing on models. But RAW is still clear that it is not the case.

I'm not sure what kind of discussion you hope to have in YMDC with this.

**BlackTalos**

Appealing mainly to all the Necron Rules Call-making currently happening, and it reminded me of this.

Hoping to see what Necron players think, and if other players have a big issue with it (Being way too OP for some or acceptable for others)

**copper.talos**

When you land on top or within 1" of an enemy model you mishap. End of story. There was lots of changes since 4th, just look at Living Metal. That change hurt more that anything.

PS If the rules of ramming havent changed dramatically in 7th, the rule you mention is to help position a skimmer after it has ended a ramming move on top of other models.

**nosferatu1001**

It only worked in 4th, anyway, as it only protected the monolith from being destroyed. So a mono in 5th could be moved out the ay, or sent back to reserves, just fine.

**megatrons2nd**

copper.talos wrote:
When you land on top or within 1" of an enemy model you mishap. End of story. There was lots of changes since 4th, just look at Living Metal. That change hurt more that anything.

PS If the rules of ramming havent changed dramatically in 7th, the rule you mention is to help position a skimmer after it has ended a ramming move on top of other models.

Excepting, a ramming skimmer is also tank shocking, so those models are moved out from underneath it, not moving the skimmer off of them.

**grendel083**

Zimko wrote:
I think RAI is that skimmers are immune to Mishapping from landing on models.

Honestly I'd disagree with that. If you look at the mishap chart, it's got nothing to do with landing on anything.
It simply represents an added element of danger. It's not safe!

**Henker-Kind**

BlackTalos wrote:
I do realise that the Skimmer + Deep Strike has be ground to dust by now, and i do not want to re-open the full RaW debate (if Possible)

For the Raw:
We know MIshap is immediately after scatter, and before any move / DS is not moving, etc
We can't claim the skimmer "is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."
This is not (really) in contention.

I'm just having one of those, "hey but it was like this, why no more?" moments:

Necron Monoliths 4TH Edition (5th?):
It used to be - I DEEP STRIKE HERE - you shunt all of your models outta the way - Pulverise the enemy you've landed in the middle of with D6 shots per unit close (or it was good, just can't recall the whole thing).

Then i went on my "GW hiatus" for a few years and came back on the drop of 6th.

What happened to the Monolith Deep Striking like a beast?
In my FLGS, we have a player that will "always successfully Deep Strike" , and i now realise he is using the RaW above and the very thing Dakka Ruled "against".

I went along with Dakka's RaW descision and was thinking it all made sense by RaW, but just now the "monolith could do it before" has dawned on me.
So more of a RaI, and finally getting to my question:

Is the rule:

If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it.

Meant for the Monolith to play how it used to play?
Arriving by Deep Strike and just getting in where it can? (the minimum distance)

My main RaI reasoning:
They've kept the monolith as a Skimmer, and with the Deep Strike Rule. Surely they meant for it to work as it always had?
Also what does the rule i quoted serve in the game?
Like: Anything actually making use of that rule (apart from the monolith wanting to play how it always had?)

I still think that the monolith-RAW would be as not to mishap when deep striking! And I do not give any credit to popular consensus!

But there is something in the new codex, that in sense of RAI seems to deny that: the living tomb formation and how it adresses 2 of the weaknesses of the monolith right now: deep strike scatter and portal infantry out of it the turn it arrives - so this seems like the rules designer know that this are his problems due to them solving those in this formation ... sooooooo lame by the way! I hate what they did to that model!!!!!

**Hollismason**

There was this huge argument a few months ago with the Dark Eldar codex came out regarding their Skimmers as well. I recall the whole , yeah they can't Tank Shock from reserve even though you can there's no rule for it or rather it's impossible to work out.

The gist though was that it was basicalyl 50/50 on whether Skimmers do indeed mishap at all.

I'm sure someone can find the thread. It may be helpful for this discusssion.

**stormcraft**

Henker-Kind wrote:

But there is something in the new codex, that in sense of RAI seems to deny that: the living tomb formation and how it adresses 2 of the weaknesses of the monolith right now: deep strike scatter and portal infantry out of it the turn it arrives - so this seems like the ruls designer kne that this are his problems due to them solving those in this formation ... sooooooo lame by the way! I hate what they did to that model!!!!!

This is the important part.

If they would think that monos should not scatter they would not have a formation now with scatter protection. The existence of this formation clearly shows what the RAI in this case is: Monos mishap, take the formation to prevent it.

**BlackTalos**

Henker-Kind wrote:
But there is something in the new codex, that in sense of RAI seems to deny that: the living tomb formation and how it adresses 2 of the weaknesses of the monolith right now: deep strike scatter and portal infantry out of it the turn it arrives - so this seems like the rules designer know that this are his problems due to them solving those in this formation

stormcraft wrote:
If they would think that monos should not scatter they would not have a formation now with scatter protection. The existence of this formation clearly shows what the RAI in this case is: Monos mishap, take the formation to prevent it.

Yeah, i did not read too much into that formation, but if it does cancel out the issues, then it would show that the rules-writers know of the problem.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It only worked in 4th, anyway, as it only protected the monolith from being destroyed. So a mono in 5th could be moved out the ay, or sent back to reserves, just fine.

I do remember it did more than just "protect", it actually "cleared away" enemy models so that you landed where you wanted, if this RaW is correct from 4th:

"Deep Strike: If it lands within one inch of an enemy model on arrival it does not suffer deep strike mishap. Instead move any models that are in the way to the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."

I mean "exactly on top" of an entire Unit is "within one inch", and the result is clear "to make space for the Monolith"

I was just wondering if the Skimmer rule quoted was not an artefact from those rules (an attempt to do the same).
I guess they've had the entirety of 5th, 6th and 7th to decide if they really wanted it to do so. So the RaI must be completely lost by now....

Hollismason wrote:
The gist though was that it was basically 50/50 on whether Skimmers do indeed mishap at all.

I'm sure someone can find the thread. It may be helpful for this discussion.

I have read that thread (and probably even participated....

Thing is, as odd as it seems, this is a monolith-Only question:
I'd say any Skimmers mishap, but remember (from the 4th ed rules above - if correct) that the monolith only did not use to...

I suppose i'm just slowly coming to the realisation that the specific rule is completely lost to old editions now, and that the Monolith is just as vulnerable to mishap as any other Land Speeder

**nosferatu1001**

Black talos - the version i had stated that it would not be destroyed, instead... there was a fair bit of debate on here early 5th around that wording, as I can recall it only preventing destruction, not other effects.

**BlackTalos**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Black talos - the version i had stated that it would not be destroyed, instead... there was a fair bit of debate on here early 5th around that wording, as I can recall it only preventing destruction, not other effects.

I see, that's sort of where i'd leave this now: Too old for it to even be a RaI argument anymore.

I'm really only basing it on the "back in 4th": (again, i'm quite sure this was the exact RaW)

"Deep Strike: If it lands within one inch of an enemy model on arrival it does not suffer deep strike mishap. Instead move any models that are in the way to the minimum distance necessary to make space for the Monolith."

Oh well, glad that wording is gone i suppose... but it made for Fun monoliths lol

**nosferatu1001**

I agree on the make space for the monolith part, it was just only activated instead of the model being destroyed, from memory. As that was the only result in 4th edition.

Edit found the thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/324983.page?userfilterid=33843

"Necron codex pg 21: "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 to make space for the monolith." "
So only IF you rolled a destroyed result would it survive a 5th edition + mishap with no other effect.

**BlackTalos**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I agree on the make space for the monolith part, it was just only activated instead of the model being destroyed, from memory. As that was the only result in 4th edition.

Edit found the thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/324983.page?userfilterid=33843

"Necron codex pg 21: "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 to make space for the monolith." "
So only IF you rolled a destroyed result would it survive a 5th edition + mishap with no other effect.

Ah i see, and it was a remnant from 3rd Edition, so this is even older than i thought......

Oh well, Moving a WAAC player's models aside, especially when they had never met Necrons was Priceless.....
Pity such a fun rule was not kept.

I've got my answer, thanks all !

**nosferatu1001**

It was a fun rule, and with the old living metal meaning it was damned difficult to kill the monolith, even being that close wasnt a huge issue.

And frankly, compared to the fun people could have with falling back necrons going through the monolith to stay on the table, WBB shenaigans with chaining models across, etc, it wasnt themost difficult rule to interpret

**krodarklorr**

Henker-Kind wrote:

But there is something in the new codex, that in sense of RAI seems to deny that: the living tomb formation and how it adresses 2 of the weaknesses of the monolith right now: deep strike scatter and portal infantry out of it the turn it arrives - so this seems like the rules designer know that this are his problems due to them solving those in this formation ... sooooooo lame by the way! I hate what they did to that model!!!!!

Actually, the Living Tomb formation's rule where Monoliths can immediately bring guys in, Well, Monoliths can already do that. They can Deep Strike in and then have guys come out.

**nosferatu1001**

I thought that happened at the start of the movement phase, which is before reserves arrive.

**krodarklorr**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought that happened at the start of the movement phase, which is before reserves arrive.

Yes, and because of the rule of Sequencing, you choose which happens first on your own turn. You can have reserves arrive before triggering the portal.

**nosferatu1001**

No, because moving on is after the start of the turn, which would be after the monolith could use its power. Sequencing doesn't help.

**krodarklorr**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, because moving on is after the start of the turn, which would be after the monolith could use its power. Sequencing doesn't help.

Moving on is before the movement phase, at the start of the turn. Thats when reserves come on.