PDA

View Full Version : Holy monolith and ARM Bonus



maddermax
03-15-2015, 07:37 AM
Ok, the holy monolith rule gives a +4 ARM bonus to the unit for a turn if a unit member is hurt.

If the Monolith Bearer dies after this has been triggered, does the bonus stay on the unit for the rest of the turn? Or does it disappear as soon as the model with the rule does?



Edit: and the second question that's now the focus of the thread, if the monolith bearer is the first model killed, Does Holy Monilith get to trigger for the rest of the unit?

Stormpuppy_Infantry
03-15-2015, 07:39 AM
Nothing says that the effect disappears when the model with Holy Monolith is leaves the unit. They just have the bonus for one turn.

denzato
03-15-2015, 07:41 AM
The ARM bonus would stay in your example because nothing in the ability says that it goes away if the model is destroyed

maddermax
03-15-2015, 07:46 AM
Yes, that's what I thought, the last line of UM's ruling here just confused me a bit. I'd say he's referring to the ability to trigger the rule.

https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?162492-Holy-Monolith&highlight=Monolith

Also, just to check, if the Monolith Bearer was the first model killed in the turn, the rule wouldn't trigger, as it triggers after the attack is resolved, correct? Or is he still on the board when the destroyed step is reached, thus triggering it to start even after he's removed?

Stormpuppy_Infantry
03-15-2015, 08:11 AM
Oops... Then TUM is right, because he has the authority.

MrLlaine
03-15-2015, 11:57 PM
TUM didn't talk about the effect after it has been triggered, it only states that if you lose the monolith bearer, you lose the ability for the rest of the game...but the effect on the UA says for the rest of the turn, not "for the rest of the turn OR until this model is removed/destroyed" or anithing similar; therefore if the ability is triggered, for the rest of the turn you will have the armor bonus even if you lose the UA.

TLDR if you lose the UA you lose the ability, not it's bonus if the ability has already been triggered

maddermax
03-16-2015, 02:58 AM
TUM didn't talk about the effect after it has been triggered, it only states that if you lose the monolith bearer, you lose the ability for the rest of the game...but the effect on the UA says for the rest of the turn, not "for the rest of the turn OR until this model is removed/destroyed" or anithing similar; therefore if the ability is triggered, for the rest of the turn you will have the armor bonus even if you lose the UA.

TLDR if you lose the UA you lose the ability, not it's bonus if the ability has already been triggered

Yes, I think that's my understanding of it as well.

That said, would the destruction of the U/A trigger the rule, if he was the first model killed? After thinking further about it, I now believe it would, as the model is "destroyed" before being removed from the table (so the rule is triggered) - having been triggered, the ARM bonus now takes affect after the attack is resolved.

Stormpuppy_Infantry
03-16-2015, 05:49 AM
TUM didn't talk about the effect after it has been triggered, it only states that if you lose the monolith bearer, you lose the ability for the rest of the game...but the effect on the UA says for the rest of the turn, not "for the rest of the turn OR until this model is removed/destroyed" or anithing similar; therefore if the ability is triggered, for the rest of the turn you will have the armor bonus even if you lose the UA.

TLDR if you lose the UA you lose the ability, not it's bonus if the ability has already been triggered

Ah... I see. Thanks for confirmination.



Yes, I think that's my understanding of it as well.

That said, would the destruction of the U/A trigger the rule, if he was the first model killed? After thinking further about it, I now believe it would, as the model is "destroyed" before being removed from the table (so the rule is triggered) - having been triggered, the ARM bonus now takes affect after the attack is resolved.

Well, Because Holy Monolith triggers after the attack is resolved, which means that after the troopers in the unit is destroyed, so if Monolith Bearer himself was the first casualty then it will not triggers because there are no models with Holy Monolith in the unit.

maddermax
03-18-2015, 06:38 AM
Ah... I see. Thanks for confirmination.




Well, Because Holy Monolith triggers after the attack is resolved, which means that after the troopers in the unit is destroyed, so if Monolith Bearer himself was the first casualty then it will not triggers because there are no models with Holy Monolith in the unit.

I thought it triggered on hit, but the bonus was only applied after the attack was resolved?

Exact wording is "When one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack, after the attack is resolved models in this unit gain +4ARM for one turn".

I read that as "trigger(model destroyed), effect (after attack resolved, +4ARM)"... but I wouldn't swear that was the way it should be read. Anyone know of any rulings on similar abilities?

Stormpuppy_Infantry
03-18-2015, 07:11 AM
I thought it triggered on hit, but the bonus was only applied after the attack was resolved?

Exact wording is "When one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack, after the attack is resolved models in this unit gain +4ARM for one turn".

I read that as "trigger(model destroyed), effect (after attack resolved, +4ARM)"... but I wouldn't swear that was the way it should be read. Anyone know of any rulings on similar abilities?

It says that it triggered when a model is destroyed, so it is far later than the model was hit. It is diffrent with triggered on a hit.

Sheer_Falacy
03-18-2015, 04:44 PM
It says that it triggered when a model is destroyed, so it is far later than the model was hit. It is diffrent with triggered on a hit.

But when a model is destroyed, it's still in play (not yet removed from the table) and any effects it has that trigger on destroyed happen. The monolith bearer is there when the monolith bearer is destroyed, but it is not there after the attack is resolved.

maddermax
03-19-2015, 02:29 AM
It says that it triggered when a model is destroyed, so it is far later than the model was hit. It is diffrent with triggered on a hit.

Sorry, I meant on destroyed, not hit, just a slip of the fingers.


But when a model is destroyed, it's still in play (not yet removed from the table) and any effects it has that trigger on destroyed happen. The monolith bearer is there when the monolith bearer is destroyed, but it is not there after the attack is resolved.

Yep, that's the crux of the question.

So is the trigger complete, and the rest of the unit gets the ARM bonus? I'd say yes, but it's not clear cut enough that I'm fully confident with that.

Falkman
03-19-2015, 03:51 AM
Exact wording is "When one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack, after the attack is resolved models in this unit gain +4ARM for one turn".
While the trigger happens while the Monolith bearer is still on the table, the resolution does not. The ability does not resolve until after the attack is completely resolved, which means that when the ability would resolve the model with the rule is no longer on the table, and thus the rule is no longer in play and cannot resolve.
The unit will not get the +4 ARM if the Monolith bearer is the first model to be destroyed that turn.

Sheer_Falacy
03-19-2015, 09:21 AM
While the trigger happens while the Monolith bearer is still on the table, the resolution does not. The ability does not resolve until after the attack is completely resolved, which means that when the ability would resolve the model with the rule is no longer on the table, and thus the rule is no longer in play and cannot resolve.
The unit will not get the +4 ARM if the Monolith bearer is the first model to be destroyed that turn.

Is there a rules citation or infernal ruling that an ability that has triggered still requires that the triggering model be around when it says it takes effect? There aren't that many examples where this is relevant, but I don't think it's clear how it works.

Ingof
03-19-2015, 11:36 AM
War Room: "...after resolving any effects triggered by being boxed it is destroyed, triggering any relevant effects. Remove the destroyed model from the table."

By that RAW I would say effects will trigger on 'destroyed,' even on a model that is destroyed. In the absence of other language I read it in the order as written: trigger effects, then remove the model. I don't have the rulebook with me to check the detailed timing table... why isn't that is War Room? If it's in there, I can't find it.

Syas
03-19-2015, 11:54 AM
Regarding the timing table, it looks like the +4 ARM happens at 11.5 (resolve effects caused by model being destroyed), whereas actually removing the model from the table is 11.6.

Falkman
03-19-2015, 12:20 PM
Is there a rules citation or infernal ruling that an ability that has triggered still requires that the triggering model be around when it says it takes effect? There aren't that many examples where this is relevant, but I don't think it's clear how it works.
I know I've seen it before, but I don't have any links handy since I don't remember in which topic it was.


Regarding the timing table, it looks like the +4 ARM happens at 11.5 (resolve effects caused by model being destroyed), whereas actually removing the model from the table is 11.6.
No. As Maddermax mentioned earlier, this is the wording of the ability: "When one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack, after the attack is resolved models in this unit gain +4ARM for one turn." I bolded the relevant part. Even though the ability triggers at 11.5, it will not resolve until 12.c. At which point it can no longer resolve, since the rule is no longer in play (having been removed at 11.6).

Ingof
03-19-2015, 01:00 PM
No. As Maddermax mentioned earlier, this is the wording of the ability: "When one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack, after the attack is resolved models in this unit gain +4ARM for one turn." I bolded the relevant part. Even though the ability triggers at 11.5, it will not resolve until 12.c. At which point it can no longer resolve, since the rule is no longer in play (having been removed at 11.6).

Aha--I think the issue is taking "when" to mean "at the time," when (ugh) it can also be taken to mean "in the event that." Thus it would be equivalent to say "If one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack..."

In this case there is no ambiguity, it triggers at 12.c, and does not happen since the bearer has been removed.

Falkman
03-19-2015, 03:12 PM
No, it has nothing to do with that. The ability does trigger at 11.5, no doubt about it. But it doesn't resolve until 12.c (after the attack is resolved) and by that point the model with the rule on it is dead, and so the rule is no longer in play and cannot resolve, thus it cannot give the bonus ARM.

onijet01
03-19-2015, 10:29 PM
Not perfect but here. I'll ask my judge about this for future reference.
http://battlecollege.wikispaces.com/Monolith

Wishing
03-19-2015, 11:22 PM
No, it has nothing to do with that. The ability does trigger at 11.5, no doubt about it. But it doesn't resolve until 12.c (after the attack is resolved) and by that point the model with the rule on it is dead, and so the rule is no longer in play and cannot resolve, thus it cannot give the bonus ARM.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that an effect that has been previously triggered disappears when the model who originally triggered it is no longer in play comes from, though. Is this just guessing or can we cite rules or precedent?

That is kind of what the other question was in this thread. The rule giving the +4 ARM is on the bearer. If the ability triggers, and then the bearer is destroyed later in the turn, does the bonus go away because the triggering model is no longer around? We all agreed that no, the bonus stays, because the effect is independent of the triggering model.

Now you are saying that in this case, the triggered ability cannot resolve when the model who originally triggered it has been removed in the meantime, i.e. that the effect is not independent of the triggering model.

Why?

Jgs360
03-20-2015, 12:31 AM
pg falkmen is correct if the monolith guy is killed first the +4 arm dose not apply to the rest of the unit

vintersbastard
03-20-2015, 02:06 AM
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that an effect that has been previously triggered disappears when the model who originally triggered it is no longer in play comes from, though. Is this just guessing or can we cite rules or precedent?
The Infernal ruling linked in post #4 would be my guess...

Falkman
03-20-2015, 02:17 AM
Now you are saying that in this case, the triggered ability cannot resolve when the model who originally triggered it has been removed in the meantime, i.e. that the effect is not independent of the triggering model.
I'm saying that because the only model with the rule on his card is gone by the time the rule is supposed to take effect, it cannot take effect since the rule is no longer in play!
But it's pointless to argue anymore about it without support for either position from an Infernal. Both sides have put forward arguments and apparently do not believe the other side, so all we can wait for is an official call (which I thought would've happened by now considering how long this thread has become).


The Infernal ruling linked in post #4 would be my guess...
That Infernal ruling is simply concerning whether the rule in question goes away with the Monolith bearer or if it stays with the unit even if he dies, basically if it's similar to Granted or Tactics.

solkan
03-20-2015, 02:29 AM
Yet rules like Shock Shield include text to prevent their effect taking place when the model has been destroyed.

That implies that there is no principle stating that a triggered effect doesn't happen just because the model leaves play. And "models in this unit" doesn't become unresolvable because "this model" leaves play.

Falkman
03-20-2015, 02:42 AM
Yet rules like Shock Shield include text to prevent their effect taking place when the model has been destroyed.
No, it doesn't. :p
It burns! and the similar rules on some Trollblood lights do however. But that could just as well only be extra clarification that Shock field, Holy monolith etc don't have, even though they work the same, similar to how some rules have the immediately word and some don't, and they work the same anyway.

Leonard_Dukes
03-20-2015, 02:47 AM
Yet rules like Shock Shield include text to prevent their effect taking place when the model has been destroyed.

Do you mean the Shock Field ability, as found in the Lancer's Shock Shield? If that's the case, it doesnt mention anything about model destruction, only that it loses Shock Field if that weapon system is crippled or locked.

Spiny Growth, though, does have text specifying that the attacking model suffers d3 damage after the attack is resolved end unless the affected model is destroyed or removed from play by the attack.

Ingof
03-20-2015, 05:19 PM
The ability does trigger at 11.5, no doubt about it. Having looked at appendix A now, I have to disagree. "After the attack is resolved" is the statement of timing. "when models are destroyed" is a condition. The timing steps always say "Resolve effects triggered by X". It makes no sense to interpret the rule as triggering and resolving at different steps. Note we agree on the outcome, as previously ruled: the +4 doesn't take effect if the bearer is destroyed.

That being said, I'm sorry for having even brought up timing after re-reading the OP. The question being, suppose a different model in the unit is destroyed first, triggering HM. Then the bearer is destroyed. Does the HM bonus continue? No, by the linked to ruling: "the ability, itself effects the entire unit as long as the Monolith Bearer is in play." So, of course, the whole argument about timing is moot.

I also couldn't find a general rule or ruling that covers that, in which case that ruling is the rule, for that particular model. If there is a general rule, I'd like to know it :)

eterenal
04-14-2015, 06:27 AM
Was there ever a resolution to this? It seems like previous rulings were in question and we don't have a resolution. At this point I'm still playing it as if the Monolith Bearer is the first casualty, no ARM bonus is gained, but it would be great to know if that's correct.

ScottMcd
04-14-2015, 07:00 AM
From the Welcome to the Rules Forum:

We do not approve of thread necromancy (which is posting in and old and gone thread bringing it "back to life"). Threads are locked, usually without reading any further, when this happens no matter what the thread is about. If you think an old topic deserves some more conversation, please start a new thread on the topic, and feel free to link to the older thread.

maddermax
04-14-2015, 02:39 PM
True threadromancy is bad, though I'd still Love a more firm answer myself. A new thread might be needed though, I dunno.

Falkman
04-14-2015, 03:16 PM
ScottMcd: there has been no resolution on the subject, and no Infernal input, not even a checking. I'd say it's fine to bring the topic up again, especially since it's not even a month since the last entry in the thread.

ScottMcd
04-14-2015, 05:06 PM
Well, since the thread was only comatose and not dead yet, i'll put in my 2 cents.

From Hordes: Primal MK II, Appendix A: page 236, Timing, paragraph 3, sentences 2&3. (I'd type them all, but tablet typing sucks)
"When resolving triggered effects, recheck trigger conditions as you resolve each ability. If a condition is no longer met, the effect does not resolve."

Here is my opinion: the effect triggers on step 11.5. While the model is still in play. Because it has triggered it will still be be able to resolve. If it doesn't work this way, the Two best abilities on Troll Whelps are worthless.
Alternate food source - ...the warbeast can remove this model from play to heal d3 damage points.
Comfort food - ...you can remove this model from play to remove any number of fury...

Both of these have you remove the model from play, then apply the effect. If the ability is lost when the model is not on the table, these would be worthless.

Also:
https://sanguinefortitude.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/tomjgpc3nn7vsd5zdrg.gif

bahamuth
04-16-2015, 05:42 AM
Well, let's think about that. "One or more models in this unit destroyed" is the condition, under which the effect would trigger, but only after the attack is resolved. So, we resolve the attack, and now recheck trigger conditions for resolving the ability. Now the ability is no longer in play, so I'd guess that, since I cannot resolve the effect of an ability that I no longer have on any model on the table, the effect of said ability just can't come into play. Yes, the condition under which the bonus would apply, has been met, but how will I be able to check that, since the rule to which the condition belongs, is no longer there?

Also, the difference to the troll whelps would be, in my opinion (I'n not experienced with trollblood rules), that "removing the model from play" is part of the resolution of the ability. So, not really the same matter.

AcidOverride
04-16-2015, 10:40 AM
The difference ScottMcd is that Troll Whelps have the Remove From Play as part of the resolution. You trigger the ability, then in the process of resolving it you 1) heal d3 or remove fury, AND 2) Remove from Play the Whelp in question.

With the Monolith Bearer you have 1) Trigger (model destroyed), 2) model removed from the table, THEN 3) ability resolution...unfortunately the model with the ability doesn't exist anymore so you can't resolve it.

An analogy would be Thagrosh, Prophet of Everblight's (pThagrosh) feat with Archangel. Gargantuans cannot be placed. It isn't a rule on the card, it is a rule for all Gargantuans in the game. Thagrosh's feat allows him to PLACE one destroyed beast. While the Archangel isn't on the table the rule preventing it from being placed doesn't exist because the model it is on (Archangel) isn't on the table. Once the ability resolves, she is now immune to place effects again because she is on the table.

Leonard_Dukes
04-16-2015, 08:09 PM
An analogy would be Thagrosh, Prophet of Everblight's (pThagrosh) feat with Archangel. Gargantuans cannot be placed. It isn't a rule on the card, it is a rule for all Gargantuans in the game. Thagrosh's feat allows him to PLACE one destroyed beast. While the Archangel isn't on the table the rule preventing it from being placed doesn't exist because the model it is on (Archangel) isn't on the table. Once the ability resolves, she is now immune to place effects again because she is on the table.

This isn't quite an appropriate analogy. The reason Gargantuans can be returned to play by Dark Revival is that "place the model" isn't referring to the "place effect" as defined on page 48 of Prime/Primal, but instead is a colloquial use of the word "place", as in "put it there". The original thread reversing the prohibition against returning a Gargantuan to play points out the distinction, specifically calling out that the rules on a card are not necessarily ignored simply because the model is not in play (e.g. Intelligence, Ambush, Tactics): https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?115521-Colossals-and-Re-Deployment&p=1822899&viewfull=1#post1822899

Ingof
04-17-2015, 10:30 AM
I believe the question has been resolved, and an Infernal has not weighed in because one already has (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?162492-Holy-Monolith&p=2063097&viewfull=1#post2063097):


The Monolith Bearer has the Holy Monolith ability. If the model is destroyed/removed from play, the abiltiy goes with the model. The Monolith bearer does not grant the ability to every model in the unit. The ability is on just the Monolith Bearer but the ability, itself effects the entire unit as long as the Monolith Bearer is in play.

The problem is this: no one has found a rule that says the effect, if triggered, and which has a specified duration, goes away if the Monolith Bearer is subsequently destroyed or removed from play. It seems the card should have an errata to add "while this model is in play." In the meantime, the above infernal ruling is the rule.

The only rule I've found regarding effects in play and models removed is that upkeep spells immediately expire if a warcaster is removed.*

The first part of the above ruling is standard; after the model is removed the effect will not trigger, since the ability goes with the model. The last part, that the ability is in effect as long as the model is in play, appears to be adding a rule to the model, which I'm guessing was not intentional, since it was not errata'd, but there it is.

The separate question of whether the ability triggers if the Monolith Bearer itself is destroyed, was I think answered in #28 (no), but is moot anyway due to the "while in play" clause.

* Edit - of course, most model special abilities have a "while in the model's command range" or some such clause. The question arises because the Monolith Bearer's ability lacks one.

Leonard_Dukes
04-17-2015, 10:46 AM
I believe the question has been resolved, and an Infernal has not weighed in because one already has (https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?162492-Holy-Monolith&p=2063097&viewfull=1#post2063097):

The separate question of whether the ability triggers if the Monolith Bearer itself is destroyed, was I think answered in #28 (no), but is moot anyway due to the "while in play" clause.


The unit loses the ability to trigger Holy Monolith once the Monolith Bearer is no longer in play. That much is agreed upon.

The question at hand is: Once Holy Monolith has already been triggered by the destruction of the Monolith Bearer itself, does the ability still resolve? To that, there seems to still be quite a bit of confusion and uncertainty.

Compare, for example, the text of Holy Monolith...


Holy Monolith - When one or more models in this unit are destroyed by an enemy attack, after the attack is resolved models in this unit gain +4 ARM for one turn.

...with similarly timed abilities such as...


It Burns! - If this model is hit by a melee attack, immediately after the attack is resolved the attacking model suffers the Fire continuous effect unless this model was destroyed or removed from play by the attack.

...and...


Spiny Growth - Target friendly Faction models gains +2 ARM. If a warjack or warbeast hits the affected model with a melee attack, the attacking model suffers d3 damage points immediately after the attack has been resolved unless the affected model was destroyed or removed from play by the attack.

These two abilities at least imply that it might be possible to resolve certain effect that would otherwise no longer be present after a model's destruction.

Ingof
04-17-2015, 11:09 AM
All of that is addressed in my previous post...

Leonard_Dukes
04-17-2015, 11:19 AM
All of that is addressed in my previous post...

My response is that the Infernal quote you provided isn't relevant to the question at hand, and that the answer provided in Post #28 ("No") is not necessarily correct, for the reason illustrated by my provided examples.

Ingof
04-17-2015, 11:33 AM
"the ability, itself effects the entire unit as long as the Monolith Bearer is in play."

Leonard_Dukes
04-17-2015, 11:44 AM
"the ability, itself effects the entire unit as long as the Monolith Bearer is in play."

As I and others have mentioned, the Infernal ruling you're quoting only deals with whether the Holy Monolith ability remains in play after the Monolith Bearer is no longer on the table - it's akin to asking whether the ability is like a "Granted" or a "Tactics" ability, i.e. "Can it still be triggered after the Monolith Bearer is gone?".

A model's rules/abilities don't cease to exist just because a model is not currently on the table (e.g. Burrow, Ambush, Intelligence, etc.)

The Infernal quote does nothing to address the question of whether the Holy Monolith ability, once triggered, still resolves upon the destruction of the Monlith Bearer. For that, we need to look at the core rules (which seem to be ambiguous) or direct confirmation for this particular issue.

Falkman
04-17-2015, 11:44 AM
That answer was given to a completely different question and does not answer the question posed by the OP in this thread.

Ingof
04-17-2015, 03:07 PM
Yeah, I now realize I was reading that as "the effect, itself" rather than "the ability, itself" which doesn't make any sense. "The ability is X but the ability, itself is Y" what? Nevermind. I go back to the opinion that there's no rule which removes the effect once triggered.

maddermax
04-18-2015, 08:39 AM
Yeah, I think on the balance, we'll probably need a purple answer in the end.

I know how I'd like it to work, I know how I think it works, but I couldn't say for certain either way, and there are no directly comparable rules to draw from.

Sheer_Falacy
04-18-2015, 12:48 PM
Kind of confused as to why this giant inconclusive thread hasn't at least gotten a "checking".

Falkman
04-18-2015, 02:01 PM
Kind of confused as to why this giant inconclusive thread hasn't at least gotten a "checking".
Yeah, same here.

maddermax
04-18-2015, 04:35 PM
Kind of confused as to why this giant inconclusive thread hasn't at least gotten a "checking".

Not giant yet, as it's only two pages, but certainly not going anywhere. I suppose because it's fairly unique in it's wording, and they want to see what others have to say on an issue, because once it goes into checking others can't give input.

bahamuth
04-20-2015, 02:05 AM
I really think that the matter is overcomplicated. There are a lot of abilities which have a trigger condition, like Enliven for example. You check for the trigger, when the timing following the specific rules text dictates so. Most of the time, the trigger will occure before the ability will kick in. Like, in the example of enliven, you check likewise, after the attack is resolved.
We seem to agree, that a ability can't trigger, if the model with the rule isn't in play anymore. This doesn't confuse anyone, if the model would be removed last turn. Why would it be different in the same turn. A ability kicks in, we check for the trigger condition (that in many cases happened before the actual ability timing), and resolve the ability as normal, if the condition WAS met.
A destroyed Warjack wouldn't get an enliven-movement, so why would the monolith bearer grant his arm-bonus?!

I'm aware, that this example lacks a lot of similarities to Holy Monolith, but I hope, that my point was transferred as much as i am able to.

DarkLegacy
04-20-2015, 07:21 AM
If the Monolith Bearer is destroyed by the attack, it will trigger the Holy Monolith ability at 11.5 but the effect does not resolve until 12.c. When it gets to 12.c, because the model is no longer in play to resolve the effect, the effect is lost and prevented from being put into play.

If another model was destroyed before the Monolith Bearer, the Holy Monolith ability will follow its normal duration and be removed at its normal time.