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.

I thought I would set up a poll for this since there has been a large debate on this topic within this thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/558882.page

So the question at hand is: Before rolling for scatter, can you place your first model for a deep strike in a area occupied by another unit. Remember, this is before rolling for scatter, so the question is not asking whether a mishap happens after scattering, but if the initial location is legal to begin with before rolling for scatter.

We have four options:

1) No to both Rules As Written and also to How You Would Play It

2) No to Rules as Written but yes to How You Would Play It

3) Yes to Rules as Written but No to How You Would Play It

4) Yes to both Rules as Written & How You Would Play It

Please vote away.

Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Even though that is a special rule which lets you do that?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Even though that is a special rule which lets you do that?

Please read the current thread in which I responded and leave this thread for poll/posting why you voted like you did. Do not want this thread to be shut down because there is a thread discussing this very topic.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Even though that is a special rule which lets you do that?

Please read the current thread in which I responded and leave this thread for poll/posting why you voted like you did. Do not want this thread to be shut down because there is a thread discussing this very topic.

Fair enough.

No for both as the table is defined as the playable area including terrain but no mention of models, bases or hulls. The many listings of models, bases and hulls have no mention of being apart of the table. And with the exception of one tyranid mcs specific rule that specifically makes allowance for it there is no allowance to either place your.lead deepstriking model on models, bases and hulls or hypothertically place said model under other models, bases and hulls by declaring a location.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Agree on the RAW for this reason, but its now HIWPI unless I'm playing the Mawloc. I just don't need the argument for a tactic that can end up costing me a unit.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, both to RAW & HIWPI is confirmed by the Mawloc being able to do so, so that is how I voted.

Agree on the RAW for this reason, but its now HIWPI unless I'm playing the Mawloc. I just don't need the argument for a tactic that can end up costing me a unit.

In this case HIWPI means they can DS there, not that you would DS a unit in that position. Sometimes there are reasons for risking it.

I voted yes to both, as the Tyranids FAQ states that the Mawloc may choose to place itself over enemy models, but doesn't have any special rules regarding placement when deep striking, so it must be something any deep striker is capable of doing (though I don't really see the point unless you really want to mishap for whatever reason).

Yes to both for the same reasons as stated by others

I voted yes. Both to RAW and not only HIWPI, but HIHPI (How I HAVE Played It).

You'll automatically mishap, but I have run into the very rare circumstance where I was willing to take the mishap for the 50% chance of just delaying a turn.

No to both. As we see from how it's actually played.

1) I'm going to put the drop pod over this unit.
2) I set it down on the table elsewhere so I can roll the dice.
3) Scatter.

As the rule is: place it on the table. you didn't place it for the 1, but did for 2. so you should scatter from where the drop pod is placed.

I don't believe the bug faq has to do with the general rule of deep striking, just his specific ability.

Yes to the RAW, as confirmed by the Mawloc FAQ and the TftD rules that ONLY trigger *after* you place the Mawloc model over an enemy unit, that when they state "anywhere" they really did mean "anywhere", barring the listed exceptions.

No for both.

The Mawloc wouldn't be able to do it by bare RAW (incidentally, the Tyranid FAQ was sweet vindication for the HIWPI crowd, since it blew away two silly RAW interpretations in the form of the Mawloc attack and Tyranid close combat weapons) without the special exemption in the FAQ.

The exemption is "special" because the FAQ query is asked specifically pertaining to the Mawloc, rather than to units in general.

I know that's disappointing and borderline unacceptable to the lawyering types, but it's like if someone wrote to GW and asked "Can I reroll any red die that lands within an inch of my Warlord" and the FAQ golems answered "Yes, you may".

It doesn't matter that a red die and a blue die are functionally identical; the question was only asked and answered about the red one.

Apart from the rules stating "anywhere", of course. As backed up by the Mawloc FAQ.

Altruizine wrote:
No for both.

The Mawloc wouldn't be able to do it by bare RAW (incidentally, the Tyranid FAQ was sweet vindication for the HIWPI crowd, since it blew away two silly RAW interpretations in the form of the Mawloc attack and Tyranid close combat weapons) without the special exemption in the FAQ.

The exemption is "special" because the FAQ query is asked specifically pertaining to the Mawloc, rather than to units in general.

I know that's disappointing and borderline unacceptable to the lawyering types, but it's like if someone wrote to GW and asked "Can I reroll any red die that lands within an inch of my Warlord" and the FAQ golems answered "Yes, you may".

It doesn't matter that a red die and a blue die are functionally identical; the question was only asked and answered about the red one.

Ok, for starters the Questions and Answers section does not create new rules or specific exceptions. It only explains what the current rules mean. The only current rules for determing where a deep striking mawloc can attempt to arrive are the generic deep striking rules. While the mawloc has its own special rules they don't become operative until AFTER the mowloc's player has selected where the unit will attempt to arrive.

Your example is poor. It lacks too much information to be a proper comparison. Do we know why you may reroll the die? Is it because it is red? Is it because it is a die? Is it because it landed withing an inch of a model? St it because it landed within an inch of your mode? Is it because that model was a warlord? It it because that model was your warlord? A 'rule' about any of these things could cause that answer. That answer does not cause a new rule.

 DeathReaper 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? (p51)
A: Yes."

It is just clarifying how the DS rules work.

This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You do not have permission to move terrain either and we know you can't deep strike in impassable terrain. By. Nos and DRs RAW, why not just smash them until you reach the table ? Wait I know, because it's not something that is RAW it is something they are using to try and support their claims.

The 1inch rule is a part of movement, DS counts as having moved.

The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of my models, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

My way has always been I wanna go here, and the rules seem to say place the model where you want it on the table. We know DS counts as having moved so you can't be within 1inch of enemy models.

So RAW I don't think you can, RAI I'd allow it with the greater chance of Mishaps. In the fury of a battle how could the models really know they were DS'in somewhere safe.

As I type this I picture me and NOS playing, I play nids, and have a solo Trygon prime, he places his desired DS location on top of my Trygon prime.
Me. "Nos, you know you have to be able to place the model on the table"
Nos. "Oh I know Dan". (nos pulls out hammer)

Once the Trygon is demolished and seeing as he's alone not within 1inch of another model I think NOS might place his model and roll for DS.

Stormbreed, you do understand that we are talking strict RAW here, not RAI or HIWPI?

WH 40K rules as they are written are non-functional at best, and total garbage at worst. You know it's poorly designed rules when players Have To make up house rules just for the game to work and be enjoyable.

Polecat wrote:
Stormbreed, you do understand that we are talking strict RAW here, not RAI or HIWPI?

WH 40K rules as they are written are non-funcional at best, and total garbage at worst. You know it's poorly designed rules when players Have To make up house rules just for the game to work and be enjoyable.

Read my post. RAW and RAI posted.

And if RAW someone is gonna smash my models, you better believe RAI is preferable.

Stormbreed wrote:


The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of me, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

On top of you is not considered by RAW as "table". Unless of course parts of you would be lying on the table, then yes, models can be deployed on top of you.

Or are you saying, that you can just place your hand or any other part of your body on the table, and say that you cant deep strike there, as it is not the table?

Polecat wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:


The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of me, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

On top of you is not considered by RAW as "table". Unless of course parts of you would be lying on the table, then yes, models can be deployed on top of you.

Or are you saying, that you can just place your hand or any other part of your body on the table, and say that you cant deep strike there, as it is not the table?

Hahahahaha. Fixed it for you. Obv on top of my models.

Stormbreed wrote:
This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You have that backwards. The FAQs are just clarifications of how the game is supposed to work.

... and we know you can't deep strike on top of battlements.

Er... yes you can...

Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

How do Spore Mines Work? The only reason I ask is because there is a FAQ for spore mines that states this.

Q: How far away must my opponent deploy from any Spore Mines from
clusters that have arrived by Deep Strike? (p48)
A: 1".

I don't know if this relevant or not since I don't know how Spore Mines work.

 insaniak wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You have that backwards. The FAQs are just clarifications of how the game is supposed to work.

... and we know you can't deep strike on top of battlements.

Er... yes you can...

Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Can a unit deploy onto battlements by Deep Strike? (p95)
A: A unit may attempt to Deep Strike onto battlements;
however, if after determining scatter, the entire unit cannot
deploy onto the battlements (for example if several models
would land on the battlements and others would have to
land on the ground next to the building, and thus out of
coherency) then the unit must roll on the Deep Strike
Mishap Table.

Fixed the 2nd part for you, but the point was based on the idea of "Smashing" models

As for the first part, actually you have it wrong. The FAQ is for only the Mawloc and doesn't set any kind of rules for any other units in the game. The fact they FAQ the Mawloc to be able to do a DS in this manner shows you need permission on models do so.

FAQ's are not blanket rules.

FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW made an allowance in his case for them to do so. That doesn't give a blanket allowance for all DS models to do so.

There are many cases where FAQ's go against each other proving these are not blanket rules.

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW clarified the rules. That allowed all DS models to do so.

Fixed this for you.

Stormbreed - there is no special allowance here, the FAQ is a confirmation only

-Shrike- wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW clarified the rules. That allowed all DS models to do so.

Fixed this for you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - there is no special allowance here, the FAQ is a confirmation only

So they Clarified the rules for Mawloc's special rule. Not for DS. I'm fine with that, after all the FAQ is worded as a question in regards to the special rule.

Stormbreed wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
FAQs are clarifications, they are not supposed to change rules, that's what amendments are for. Granted, GW have been known to change rules in FAQs, but I don't think we should just assume they're incompetent and have changed the rule for the Mawloc alone despite it being in an FAQ not an amendment, when a clarification that allows deep strikers to be placed over a unit is also a reasonable interpretation.

People didn't think based on the rules you could place the original location over the models you wanted to use Mawloc's special rules on, so they asked and GW clarified the rules. That allowed all DS models to do so.

Fixed this for you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - there is no special allowance here, the FAQ is a confirmation only

So they Clarified the rules for Mawloc's special rule. Not for DS. I'm fine with that, after all the FAQ is worded as a question in regards to the special rule.

"Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use X?"

Note that they didn't clarify the rule X. They clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind rule X. The fact that all other units mishap when Deep Striking in the same way is irrelevant.