Besides the str6 ap2 large blast vs infantry and str6 hit on rear armour vs vehicles.. how does the mawlocs ability "destroy models"

The minimum distance necessary, whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassible terrain could surely cover 1/2 the board?

I guess a squad of infantry with 1/2 the number of units struck (all surviving due to invulnerable saves/failed to-wound, for sake of argument) would then have to be moved whilst the other 1/2 of the squad would have to remain still*. If there were some crazy-tight situation that wouldn't allow some of those remaining squad members to be replaced within coherency then they would be destroyed. Right?

*Ahh but I counter my own argument with "move that unit..." (quoted). This means you can move the whole unit as-far-as, if its the minimum required. So no models should ever have to be destroyed (unless the entire board becomes impassable terrain). See below for the vehicle premise.

I don't see how vehicles can be destroyed (I would like to hear examples of how you think they could be, please?). If you have a vehicle sitting in a large-blast-sized hole. Surrounding that hole is impassable terrain that is 1-50" wide (the distance doesn't matter (or does it? If so, why?), assume there is some open space after it, i.e not covering the whole board).
Now, when the mawloc hits the vehicle with its str6 hit (and is not destroyed by it) it can be moved "by the minimum distance necessary" and (assuming we are not dealing with a vehicle squadron) "avoiding impassable terrain"

So could the vehicle move through 50" of impassable terrain, if that was the minimum possible distance for it to be moved, when affected by the Terror from the Deep rule?

Any thing I missed? Any comments to add? Anyone have a different angle on this?

The only thing that comes to mind is that if a vehicle is surrounded by other units it cannot move OVER those units. So if the Mawloc forces a vehicle to move but there is no room to move the vehicle without moving through other units...it cant move. Nothing suggests lifting the vehicle up and moving it through the air, it would have to move along the ground.

If the rule is taken to mean lift up the vehicle and place it, then there is really no way the vehicle couldever be destroyed. But if it has to be moved along the plane of the table, then yes it may not be able to move a vehicle.

A mawloc popping up right under the middle of an ork truk swarm or an IG chimera spam army might well manage it.

The wording "avoiding impassable terrain does suggest that the vehicle cant skip over such terrain, it needs to move on the table top.


Thats the best idea I can come up with as to why/ how vehicles could be destroyed.



Sliggoth

I think the "avoiding impassable terrain" means you can't end up beyond impassable terrain as a result of the movement, and given that other models are considered impassable terrain, it would be entirely possible to have units unable to move beyond the blast.

edit: that is to say I think you move along the table, rather than pick up and place

Well, I guess if you assume other units are impassable terrain or not. I think they are only considered that for deep-striking?

If you do assume that other units count as Impassable terrain then the minimum distance for the vehicle to be moved would be past those vehicles. It doesn't matter if you move them under/over/etc It simply has to be the minimum distance required. If there is a space that's only 50% required to place the tank which is 2" away and there is a space which is 100%+ the size to place the tank which is 20" away (and nothing in-between) then the space 20" would be the "minimum distance necessary"

Razerous wrote:Well, I guess if you assume other units are impassable terrain or not. I think they are only considered that for deep-striking?

nope, other models are always impassable terrain, Page 13, BRB: "Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain"

Razerous wrote:If you do assume that other units count as Impassable terrain then the minimum distance for the vehicle to be moved would be past those vehicles. It doesn't matter if you move them under/over/etc It simply has to be the minimum distance required. If there is a space that's only 50% required to place the tank which is 2" away and there is a space which is 100%+ the size to place the tank which is 20" away (and nothing in-between) then the space 20" would be the "minimum distance necessary"

I agree, however, I am saying, if in moving to that point 20" away you are forced to travel "through" impassable terrain, then you are not satisfying the Mawloc's rules which say you must "avoid impassable terrain", and so you can't go there.

Moving the minimum distance necessary whilst avoiding impassable terrain; So you cant move past impassable terrain? Why? Whats wrong with just moving stuff past other things, as your still avoiding it, if it is the minimum distance required?

Or is it that I'm having a hard time understanding the word "Avoiding"

It is most certainly an issue of a disagreement regarding the meaning of the word "Avoiding" I would consider moving through impassable terrain to be a failure to avoid it, I'm not quite sure why you think otherwhise but I think it is because you see the move as "pick up at point X, put down at closest alternate point" whereas I see it as "move along the board until you find free space"

Razerous wrote:Moving the minimum distance necessary whilst avoiding impassable terrain; So you cant move past impassable terrain? Why? Whats wrong with just moving stuff past other things, as your still avoiding it, if it is the minimum distance required?

Or is it that I'm having a hard time understanding the word "Avoiding"

You cannot *move* through impassable terrain, that is part of the definition of "impassable" - so you are told you msut move, and as such the path of this move CANNOT go through impassable terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Razerous wrote:Moving the minimum distance necessary whilst avoiding impassable terrain; So you cant move past impassable terrain? Why? Whats wrong with just moving stuff past other things, as your still avoiding it, if it is the minimum distance required?

Or is it that I'm having a hard time understanding the word "Avoiding"

You cannot *move* through impassable terrain, that is part of the definition of "impassable" - so you are told you msut move, and as such the path of this move CANNOT go through impassable terrain.

Your mixing up movement with Infantry Movement & all sub-groups of infantry. A jetbike could move past impassable terrain whilst standard infantry could not. But it is not that kind of movement, I assume it is just that you can not end up in/on/touching the impassable terrain.

JI move *over* impassable terrain - so I am not mixing it up, just doing the sensible thing and stating the base case.

You assume incorrect - if it states it is a "move" you follow the rules for such, one being that *unless* you have a rule stating otherwise you cannot move through Impassable terrain.

You are assuming you can pick the models up and place them, which is not supproted by the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:JI move *over* impassable terrain - so I am not mixing it up, just doing the sensible thing and stating the base case.

You assume incorrect - if it states it is a "move" you follow the rules for such, one being that *unless* you have a rule stating otherwise you cannot move through Impassable terrain.

You are assuming you can pick the models up and place them, which is not supproted by the rules.

Does this mean it is limited to a 6" move, as per the movement rules?

The Mawloc's rule merely mentions "avoiding". If you are either side of a piece of terrain, it is still avoided. Following the instructions, you can move a unit (yes, I used the word from the rule but no I do not think it has anything to do with the Movement phase) the minimum distance necessary, avoiding impassable terrain and maintaining squad coherency. So, we now have to include the word "move" and the word "avoiding" into the possible defintions of. I choose to take them based within the context of the rule and only set terms, i.e Impassable terrain, should be used from the BGB.

What about immobilized vehicles? They can't move per say so are they removed?

davidson wrote:What about immobilized vehicles? They can't move per say so are they removed?

No. They are moved.

Something "not being able to move" and "being moved" are very different things.

Immobilised vehicles cannot move, but nothing prevents them from being moved.

Razerous wrote:Does this mean it is limited to a 6" move, as per the movement rules?

No, as you are given *explicit* permission to move "the minimum distance necessary" - which could be more than 6", in theory

Razerous wrote:The Mawloc's rule merely mentions "avoiding". If you are either side of a piece of terrain, it is still avoided. Following the instructions, you can move a unit (yes, I used the word from the rule but no I do not think it has anything to do with the Movement phase) the minimum distance necessary, avoiding impassable terrain and maintaining squad coherency. So, we now have to include the word "move" and the word "avoiding" into the possible defintions of. I choose to take them based within the context of the rule and only set terms, i.e Impassable terrain, should be used from the BGB.

Except you are not given permission to MOVE through impassable terrain, so you cannot. A "move" does not have to occur in the Movement phase ya know? For example Run and Assault all use movement rules, as does Lash (opponents shooting phase!), the rules for Consolidation, etc.

By stating it is a "move" you MUST use what the rulebook tells you is a move. You CANNOT simply decide to ignore the rules for movement by passing through impassable terrain when not told you may do so.

Im just gonna have to disagree. Its a bit pointless as the rules arent as clear cut as the rules you use to describe them with.

The only thing you are told to do is; "Move that unit, by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst.. avoiding impassable terrain."

Thats it. What exactly is being expressly forbidden on p14 of the rulebook? Cant move in or across (the across part is on p13) unless allowed to as part of their unit profile. The mawloc's rule hasn't got anything to do with the units profile. Buuut I assume it still "counts" as being somthing that can effect a units interaction with impassable terrain.

And how exactly does "avoid" has a linear intent bolted on to it. You can avoid something either side of an obstacle where-ever it be closer or further away and if the further away option is the only option available then that would count as "minimum distance necessary". Right? How could it be otherwise.

It might have been unwise to argue that it doesnt count as proper "movement" but it doesn't even matter. Read above.

RAW: TftD does not work. we know this.

HWYPI: The Mawloc can be placed on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed.

In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

Demogerg wrote:RAW: TftD does not work. we know this.

HWYPI: The Mawloc can be placed on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed.

In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

Whats HWYPI & TfTD? I would say that "immediate outside edge" is not "minimum distance necessary" but it sounds like a pretty good idea; Simple, useful, but possibly too powerful? (But I'm hesitant because I dont know what those acronyms are, which might explain it all/not really need me to reply?).

Razerous wrote:

Demogerg wrote:RAW: TftD does not work. we know this.

HWYPI: The Mawloc can be placed on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed.

In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

Whats HWYPI & TfTD? I would say that "immediate outside edge" is not "minimum distance necessary" but it sounds like a pretty good idea; Simple, useful, but possibly too powerful? (But I'm hesitant because I dont know what those acronyms are, which might explain it all/not really need me to reply?).

TftD = Terror from the Deep
HIWPI: How I would Play it.

Gwar! wrote:

Razerous wrote:

Demogerg wrote:RAW: TftD does not work. we know this.

HWYPI: The Mawloc can be placed on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed.

In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

Whats HWYPI & TfTD? I would say that "immediate outside edge" is not "minimum distance necessary" but it sounds like a pretty good idea; Simple, useful, but possibly too powerful? (But I'm hesitant because I dont know what those acronyms are, which might explain it all/not really need me to reply?).

TftD = Terror from the Deep
HIWPI: How I would Play it.

HWYPI
"How would you play it"
substituted for
HIWPI
"How would I play it"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Razerous wrote: sounds like a pretty good idea; Simple, useful, but possibly too powerful?

I've played a few test games with it, and it requires a good deal of finesse, just about anything can kill the Mawloc in an assault, so it must be used wisely.

when used properly it CAN be the difference between a win and a loss, but this is true of many things.

its not a spamhammer that will eat stuff all game, its more like a back-pocket insurance unit to apply pressure when and where needed.

HWYPI: The Mawloc can be placed on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed.

In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

This certainly looks like RaI and how we play it too. We don't use a lot of impassible terrain so it only really effects bunched up armies and if the guy knows you have a mawloc and keeps his guys bunched up so you can do this then that's his look out

Razerous wrote:Im just gonna have to disagree. Its a bit pointless as the rules arent as clear cut as the rules you use to describe them with.

The only thing you are told to do is; "Move that unit, by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst.. avoiding impassable terrain."

Thats it. What exactly is being expressly forbidden on p14 of the rulebook? Cant move in or across (the across part is on p13) unless allowed to as part of their unit profile. The mawloc's rule hasn't got anything to do with the units profile. Buuut I assume it still "counts" as being somthing that can effect a units interaction with impassable terrain.

So, you are told to MOVE the unit. Ok, now, how do you move units? Follow the movement rules. The same rules that do not let you move through impassable terrain.

Done, sorted. That's all you need to know. In the exact same way that Lash tells you to move the unit 2D6, and that was confirmed by FAQ as being exactly that, a *move*, performed using the rules given for movement.

Razerous wrote:And how exactly does "avoid" has a linear intent bolted on to it. You can avoid something either side of an obstacle where-ever it be closer or further away and if the further away option is the only option available then that would count as "minimum distance necessary". Right? How could it be otherwise.

It might have been unwise to argue that it doesnt count as proper "movement" but it doesn't even matter. Read above.

I have read, and you still ignore that "avoiding impassable terrain" does not give you permission to move THROUGH that terrain now, does it? In essence it acts as a reminder that this is a normal move, such that impassable terrain is not something you can move through unless you are expressly allowed to.

The *only* guidance you have been given is that it is a "move", and you have no choice but to use the movement rules to carry this move out. The only exception is thast "he minimum distance" can override the usual 6" move that infantry can perform.

I have read, and you still ignore that "avoiding impassable terrain" does not give you permission to move THROUGH that terrain now, does it? In essence it acts as a reminder that this is a normal move, such that impassable terrain is not something you can move through unless you are expressly allowed to.

But it does give you permission to move around impassible terrain. So for instance an infantry squad surrounded by friendly vehicles 1.5" apart gets hit by TftD. They can move throught the gaps and therefore can be placed the other side of the vehicles in unit coherency now some 6"+ from the Mawloc. If you see what I'm saying?

In all likely hood that means that infantry can always be legally placed (or nearly always) however Vehicles is a different matter. Skimmers likewise can always be placed (as they can move through impassible terrain).

Yes, never said it didnt - I was just saying that "through" is most definitely out.

Yes, never said it didnt - I was just saying that "through" is most definitely out.

Yeah I know but I still don't think the situation I've described above is how the rule is supposed to work.

Which is why it allows you to move "the minimum amount" - which is allowance to move further than your normal maximum distance if necessary.

I'm just gonna choose to disagree. I've made my point. So has the word "avoiding".

If the vehicle can not move and is destroyed does the crew get an opportunity to disembark or is it taken with the vehicle?

If the vehicle can not move and is destroyed does the crew get an opportunity to disembark or is it taken with the vehicle?

The implication is that they get destroyed, though I'm not sure. When would they disembark? The vehicle isn't wrecked or explodes it is just removed so the implication is they go too?

generally speaking, IIRC the transported unit only has an opprotunity to disembark the vehicle when it suffers a destroyed-wrecked result or a destroyed-explosion result on the damage table, and not necesarily from just being removed as destroyed as per a special rule. I could be wrong though, i dont have the BRB on me to check.

Where does it go? Does it fall into a hole? Vehicles either explode or are wrecked in either case emergency disembarkations are allowed.

(not directed at anyone)
This has to be one of the worst rules I've seen GW write. Now all the power gamers are looking for as many loopholes as possible to make this some uber-unit. All I know is that playing like people here are talking will quickly make you TFG at wherever you play.

Where does it go? Does it fall into a hole? Vehicles either explode or are wrecked in either case emergency disembarkations are allowed.

Nah it is just removed and suffers neither a wrecked or explodes result so no way to deal with disembarked passengers.

This has to be one of the worst rules I've seen GW write. Now all the power gamers are looking for as many loopholes as possible to make this some uber-unit. All I know is that playing like people here are talking will quickly make you TFG at wherever you play.

If you want to be technical no Tyranid receives any bonuses from having CCWs... Those entire rules are redundant by RaW, so you can throw that at anyone be TFG.

This is a pretty uder attack but you are pay 170 points for it so it should be the Mawloc is a one trick pony and not much use otherwise. You just have to be sensible and not have your army bunched up for his 2nd turn onwards and certainly not on the ground floor of anything. Do that and the attack is pretty crippled.

I hate this rule so much, on so many levels...

I would probably play it as you move the vehicle to the nearest available, but it takes a penetrating hit, just because I like the idea of flinging a tank up through the air after getting caught from below by the mawloc. Plus, it sort of fits with the lifta-dropper rules for "picking up vehicles and tossing them aroun."

Pretty sad when the rules I find a "reasonable" analogue to make the ability work are in Apoc. Still, destroying seems a bit much, and there really isn't another good option. Blargh, hateful rules writing!

To be honest I have no sympathy for anyone that has this happen to them. Why surround your own vehicles like this if you know he has a Mawloc? The Mawloc comes up before the Tyranid player moves any models so you would have had to move your vehicle into such a predicament knowing he has a Mawloc?!?! Well if you're that dumb then you deserve to have it happen to you.

sarcasm/
Yeah, your mawloc came up under my titan and moved it into a building, destroying it.
/sarcasm

So this thing can kill baneblades and anything else that can't move; yippee, and that makes complete sense, how? Great nid tactic in apoc, stun the titan and then mawloc it ftw!

Ok so I wasn't finished being sarcastic.

I am a bit iffy on that.. I can see the rule lawyering allowing for that. All I can say is that I would be a bit miffed if my Grand master and his retinue disappeared because of something like this..

agnosto wrote:sarcasm/
Yeah, your mawloc came up under my titan and moved it into a building, destroying it.
/sarcasm

So this thing can kill baneblades and anything else that can't move; yippee, and that makes complete sense, how? Great nid tactic in apoc, stun the titan and then mawloc it ftw!

Ok so I wasn't finished being sarcastic.

I think you misunderstand.

the unit is moved, the unit is not moving itself. Stunned/immobilized vehicles are moved out of the way, if there is no where to place the unit, then it is destroyed.

so if you surround your baneblade with leman russes, and i pop a mawloc under your baneblade, then yes, your baneblade is destroyed. simple solution is dont surround your units like that, and you will be fine.

So this thing can kill baneblades and anything else that can't move; yippee, and that makes complete sense, how? Great nid tactic in apoc, stun the titan and then mawloc it ftw!

Well apocalypse is a different type of beats all together, still not sure why the models can't be moved? How would you stun a vehicle before your movement phase has started?

Immobilised Vehicles would probably be instant destroyed, but not sure on the exact wording as I've not my codex here but I imagine you'd just move them still as long as other restrictions apply, it is not moving by it's own volition. Like when you tank shock a spore it is still moved aside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think you misunderstand.

the unit is moved, the unit is not moving itself. Stunned/immobilized vehicles are moved out of the way, if there is no where to place the unit, then it is destroyed.

so if you surround your baneblade with leman russes, and i pop a mawloc under your baneblade, then yes, your baneblade is destroyed. simple solution is dont surround your units like that, and you will be fine.

Yeah cheers for that I thought that was the case. As I said due to the Mawloc coming up at the start of the Tyranid turn you've had to have moved your vehicle into that situation (i.e. surrounded it with Leman Russes) or at worst not moved it out of that situation (say he surrounded it with lictors the previous turn and you've decided to leave it there and not kill any lictors). Either way it is entirely your own stupid fault.

I think the rule is simply a special attack followed by a deployment that displaces an enemy units models in a way that mirrors tank shock, since both use similar language to each other.

The wounds from the special attack are rolled for and models are removed. The remaining models are moved distance to avoid the Mawloc's deployment so that it can enter play.

Effectively units are suppose to avoid moving through impassible terrain. To move the minimum distance necessary to avoid being placed in impassible terrain and the Mawloc you can simply place the model on the opposite side of the Mawloc. Thus unless you're playing a very wonky table designed to break the rules the maximum distance a model should ever end up moving is just beyond the largest dimension of the Mawloc's base.

As far as a vehicle surrounded by an enemy being moved by the Mawloc, I'd say the vehicle moves and the surrounding unit is simply moved aside. Otherwise the vehicle should simply be placed on the other side of the surrounding unit, the shortest distance in all directions from where it was. Even if a 40 model unit perfectly engulfs a vehicle before the Mawloc does his thing, thats at most 6-7" to clear the unit. More realistically, a unit will not so uniformly engulf a vehicle and there will be space to one side or another thats a little less than to move through the sea of models.

As far as this thing displacing titans, I don't think that should work. This is just my opinion. It just shouldn't work on Gargantuan creatures or superheavies.

It doesnt matter waht you think should work. The rules are clear that the only units that move are those that took hits.
It also says any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. So suppose I have a land raider surrounded by something like 10 rhinos. Mawlok hops up in the middle hitting the raider but no rhinos. Raider is dead, as it can move but the rhinos cannot. Nothing suggests that it moves units that were not affected. If your group wishes to play that way for some sense of balance or justice thats your choice, but its not RAW.

Avoiding impassable terrain means you cannot move through it, you have to move around if at all possible. If its not though then too bad.

Its really not that hard to avoid, its kinda gimmicky. Dont cluster everything up in a tight ball and the mawloc wont give you any problems.

Looks like the easiest way to kill a landraider.

Yes it is. Assuming that your opponent is fething stupid.

Anyone dumb enough to see a mawloc across the table, and their reaction is to deploy like that is going to lose anyways.

Agreed.

I do still think the Apocalypse rules will override it affecting superheavies and the alike.

aka_mythos wrote:I think the rule is simply a special attack followed by a deployment that displaces an enemy units models in a way that mirrors tank shock, since both use similar language to each other.

The wounds from the special attack are rolled for and models are removed. The remaining models are moved distance to avoid the Mawloc's deployment so that it can enter play.

Effectively units are suppose to avoid moving through impassible terrain. To move the minimum distance necessary to avoid being placed in impassible terrain and the Mawloc you can simply place the model on the opposite side of the Mawloc. Thus unless you're playing a very wonky table designed to break the rules the maximum distance a model should ever end up moving is just beyond the largest dimension of the Mawloc's base.

As far as a vehicle surrounded by an enemy being moved by the Mawloc, I'd say the vehicle moves and the surrounding unit is simply moved aside. Otherwise the vehicle should simply be placed on the other side of the surrounding unit, the shortest distance in all directions from where it was. Even if a 40 model unit perfectly engulfs a vehicle before the Mawloc does his thing, thats at most 6-7" to clear the unit. More realistically, a unit will not so uniformly engulf a vehicle and there will be space to one side or another thats a little less than to move through the sea of models.

As far as this thing displacing titans, I don't think that should work. This is just my opinion. It just shouldn't work on Gargantuan creatures or superheavies.

not to sound like a jerk, but have you actually read the rule?

you only move the models that are touched by the large blast marker, if they cannot be placed because of impassible terrain they are destroyed. others models are considered to be impassible terrain as per the BRB.
If it said you were allowed to shuffle models out of the way then sure, but if your unit is surrounded by models that are not touching the blast marker then im sorry, no dice.


Case 1, nothing is destroyed, vehicle moves out of the way
Case 2, vehicle has no where to go, and is destroyed.

You could deep strikes a few montrous creatures around it, and then bring up the mawloc.. It is still something that can be utilized relatively easily, no? It may not ever be any fault of the player that a Mawloc insta-destroys their landraider. I want to see this play tested a few times and see if it can actually be done well with intent.

Majesticgoat wrote:You could deep strikes a few montrous creatures around it, and then bring up the mawloc.. It is still something that can be utilized relatively easily, no? It may not ever be any fault of the player that a Mawloc insta-destroys their landraider. I want to see this play tested a few times and see if it can actually be done well with intent.

Id have to deep strike 2 trygons or spod fexs and something else in a spod, have it land in perfect formation, and the mawloc land. Sure its possible but its committing over 1k points to kill a raider in a very risky scenario. Screen it well.

Before I destroy anything I'll want a rule that tells me specifically to destroy it. End of story. I would go with what a TO says or I would be willing to completely screw the RaW and move my other models out of the way to make room fro the models being moved. I'm not destroying them unless it says too specifically though.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Before I destroy anything I'll want a rule that tells me specifically to destroy it. End of story. I would go with what a TO says or I would be willing to completely screw the RaW and move my other models out of the way to make room fro the models being moved. I'm not destroying them unless it says too specifically though.

Perhaps you should read the terror from the deep rules.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Before I destroy anything I'll want a rule that tells me specifically to destroy it. End of story. I would go with what a TO says or I would be willing to completely screw the RaW and move my other models out of the way to make room fro the models being moved. I'm not destroying them unless it says too specifically though.

If you cannot move the model to a legal positiont he model is destroyed. IT IS in the rules.

Demogerg wrote:not to sound like a jerk, but have you actually read the rule?

you only move the models that are touched by the large blast marker,

Likewise, don't mean to sound a jerk, but have you actually read the rule (or paid attention to any of the previous posts?).

And I quote;

Tyranid Codex 5th, Mawloc Entry P51 wrote:If any unit has surviving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency ..

So, this means that you are in fact allowed to move the entire unit. Not just the models covered under the template. I assume you are allowed to do it if it means keeping the squad in coherency and/or avoiding impassable terrain.

Please read the rules REALLY carefully before trying to correct someone else. I have just spent a good 5 mins reading, word-for-word, that lil bit of the rule. Just to be sure. I am.

The problem with the avoid impassable terrain is that you have to go around it. You cannot magically fly over it. And if that is impossible you have nowhere to go and hence are dead.

Nobody is arguing the move the entire unit, simply moving units that are not touched by the template, or moving guys over units.

I am supporting my friends conversion idea in which he would model his Mawloc to look like a snake that was digesting an animal, except in this case the Mawloc will have an enormous bulge in the shape of a landraider in its belly. That would be cool.

I am starting to dislike what in my opinion seems to be a trend in some pretty loosely worded or poorly thought out special rules in these new codices.

Its always been that way though. Remember lash or eldrad in 4th edition?

Although they dont seem to have any quality control anymore.

Naw, GW have actually really improved with the Nid codex (though compared to the likes of the SW codex, a Bowl of Noodles would be an Improvement).

What annoys me is GWs oh so unsubtle "BUY NEW SHINEY MODELS!" approach to writing rules. i.e. Carnifex which nid players had 6 of now such, but Tervigons and other new models are OMFG WTF HAXX EPIC!

Razerous wrote:

Demogerg wrote:not to sound like a jerk, but have you actually read the rule?

you only move the models that are touched by the large blast marker,

Likewise, don't mean to sound a jerk, but have you actually read the rule (or paid attention to any of the previous posts?).

And I quote;

Tyranid Codex 5th, Mawloc Entry P51 wrote:If any unit has surviving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency ..

So, this means that you are in fact allowed to move the entire unit. Not just the models covered under the template. I assume you are allowed to do it if it means keeping the squad in coherency and/or avoiding impassable terrain.

Please read the rules REALLY carefully before trying to correct someone else. I have just spent a good 5 mins reading, word-for-word, that lil bit of the rule. Just to be sure. I am.

Right, you can move the entire unit, IF the unit is hit with the template, in my examples they are not, the above poster was refering to moving the surrounding unit out of the way for a unit that was hit by the template.

So Im guessing there is a RAW consensus but Ill aske it here in this thread. Are you placing the model then scattering, thus not allowing it to come up under units unless random? I understand the "intent" and I usually will let it slide but this rule is written very poorly.

Seems like the rule is written as:

1. Place model. (cant place models on top of models)
2. Scatter
3. Resolve wounds.

Deep Striking RaW states the player must place the model on the table before rolling the dice, not hold the model over my models, not put the template over my models... Yes my opponent wants to wipe out my entire squad of firewarriors but he/she'll have to work for it.

Edit:
Here's a funny thought that just occured to me; would a seismic hammer kill a mawloc?

Thats the way I see it as well.

Explain the seismic hammer questions?

agnosto wrote:Deep Striking RaW states the player must place the model on the table before rolling the dice, not hold the model over my models, not put the template over my models... Yes my opponent wants to wipe out my entire squad of firewarriors but he/she'll have to work for it.

I was under the impression that models in a deep striking unit had not moved until after the deep strike was done, not before. If this is so then I can hover him over your guys until the scatter is rolled, as he has not deep struck yet.

Second is this bit. "if the mawloc deep strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the strike mishap table but instead do the following......" So if he does count as moving/deep striking during the initial placing then I dont need to bring him out, just my template which can legally fit wherever it needs to be.

How can you hover, when you are told you must *place* the model?

For the love of god, please do not start this again.

Anyone with half a brain knows what the intended purpose of the Mawloc is. Those that argue it are people who either

-Know the intention, but RAW is RAW and they will not play RAI until GW makes an official errata. This is known as "stubborn" in most circles, "obstinate" in others and "prickish" in most.

-Fail to acknowledge the intention, and argue RAW for why it will not work.

Of course neither of these positions acknowledges the fact that RAW itself is very unclear, and you can't make a simple judgment based on Page 95 vs. Page 13 of the BRB, since the rules contradict each other. Is the general rule applicable to the special deep-striking rules, or vice versa?

The best we can do is lock this topic, and sticky a topic that basically says "Here is where we are with this argument, please stop clogging our intellects with this garbage argument."

As far as the original question, I do think the rules are VERY clear on this. If the unit is touched by the large blast template, move it out of the way. If it has nowhere to go, it is destroyed. I find it very similar to surrounding an enemy tank before wrecking it, causing the unit inside to have nowhere to go and subsequently destroying the unit.

Fizyx wrote:For the love of god, please do not start this again.

Anyone with half a brain knows what the intended purpose of the Mawloc is. Those that argue it are people who either

-Know the intention, but RAW is RAW and they will not play RAI until GW makes an official errata. This is known as "stubborn" in most circles, "obstinate" in others and "prickish" in most.

-Fail to acknowledge the intention, and argue RAW for why it will not work.

Of course neither of these positions acknowledges the fact that RAW itself is very unclear, and you can't make a simple judgment based on Page 95 vs. Page 13 of the BRB, since the rules contradict each other. Is the general rule applicable to the special deep-striking rules, or vice versa?

The best we can do is lock this topic, and sticky a topic that basically says "Here is where we are with this argument, please stop clogging our intellects with this garbage argument."

As far as the original question, I do think the rules are VERY clear on this. If the unit is touched by the large blast template, move it out of the way. If it has nowhere to go, it is destroyed. I find it very similar to surrounding an enemy tank before wrecking it, causing the unit inside to have nowhere to go and subsequently destroying the unit.

You're right, we should just disregard the entire rulebook and "feel" our way through the game; I know, I'll channel the GW rules writers through a Ouija board and they can tell us what they "meant" when they were writing the book and not what they actually said.

RaI is a crutch for people to try and hide behind when the RaW don't say what they want it to say.

I fail to see how page 95 and 13 are contradictory as page 13 is specifically talking about terrain and placement of your model on some hill or something where it might fall over and chip the paint or shatter into a million pieces (if it's a bloodthirster I can almost promise you the wings will fall off).

You and likeminded individuals seem to think that the "deep strikes into an enemy unit" phrase means something completely different when it clearly means that if you end your deep strike (you know after the scatter thing) in an enemy unit, the model is replaced with a marker. I know, the clear wording of DS rules is contradictory to people that want to make the mawloc an uber-unit, you can call me a prick all you want but dem's the rules.

agnosto wrote:
You and likeminded individuals seem to think that the "deep strikes into an enemy unit" phrase means something completely different when it clearly means that if you end your deep strike (you know after the scatter thing) in an enemy unit, the model is replaced with a marker. I know, the clear wording of DS rules is contradictory to people that want to make the mawloc an uber-unit, you can call me a prick all you want but dem's the rules.

No, that is your interpretation of the rules.

If you want to rules lawyer fine, but if you are going to state the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the page 13-14 rules for movement and placement, then you are following RAI. If you want to follow your own rules as written, you have to ignore that intent and follow RAW.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to include RAI, then the Mawloc can perform its intended function. If you want to adhere to RAW, then you can not assume the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the normal rules for placement, therefore you can place the model anywhere on the table.

Or we could all just shut up about it. No matter what transpires on this forum, I'm going to make sure my opponent knows my intentions regarding the Mawloc before the game. If he doesn't agree I will bring out a second list I have prepared that does not include a Mawloc. I think that's a pretty fair solution until all this chatter settles down.

I hate this RAW + Rules argument it holds no water. RAI is by definition the rules. RAW is a tool we have for interpreting those rules, however NO ONE plays by strict RAW. Otherwise:

Space Wolf Scouts don't have the scouts rule.

Tyranid Close combat weapons are entirely useless and have no in game effect.

Yriel's spear is useless and has no in game effect.

Shrike can't inflitrate with a unit he deploys with.

Ramming is impossible.

IG have useless frag grenades that do nothing.

And my person favourite place a dice on the table with a 6 on the side on rolling it with your hand so the 6 faces upwards is an entirely legal dice roll.

Agnosto do you play all the above rules?

FlingitNow wrote:NO ONE plays by strict RAW

that is a gross generalization, you do not know for a fact that no one plays by strict RAW.

This is YMDC, and the point here is to provide a multitude of options for people to select from when they have a rules query

Strict RAW, HWYPI or HIWPI, and RAI

RAW is like math, there is a right and wrong answer, do not get offended when people tell you something is against RAW, they are being literal.
HWYPI/HIWPI is a personal interpretation, or a collective interpretation of the people you play with, this is the most helpful bit.
RAI is an interpretation based on fluff or vague references to rules that make no sense or dont function as written, it can be interpreted multiple ways, and in MOST cases should be avoided in these discussions; they tend to end in arguements.

as I said earlier wrote:
RAW: TftD does not work. we know this.

HWYPI/HIWPI: The Mawloc can be "placed" on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed. In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

RAI: i THINK the intention of TFTD was for it to be played in the same manner as I listed the HWYPI/HIWPI.








NB4TL

RAW is like math, there is a right and wrong answer, do not get offended when people tell you something is against RAW, they are being literal.

I don't get offended when people say somethig is wrong under RaW, I get annoyed when people try to pass off RAW as the rules and claim anyone not obeying RAW is cheating/making up rules/ Breaking rules/making house rules, as this is not always the case.

I don't know anyone that would play half of the silly RAW rules I've, do you anyone that would play Warhammer by strict RaW meaning players can just select what roll they want from each dice? That is not a game...

Fizyx wrote:

agnosto wrote:
You and likeminded individuals seem to think that the "deep strikes into an enemy unit" phrase means something completely different when it clearly means that if you end your deep strike (you know after the scatter thing) in an enemy unit, the model is replaced with a marker. I know, the clear wording of DS rules is contradictory to people that want to make the mawloc an uber-unit, you can call me a prick all you want but dem's the rules.

No, that is your interpretation of the rules.

If you want to rules lawyer fine, but if you are going to state the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the page 13-14 rules for movement and placement, then you are following RAI. If you want to follow your own rules as written, you have to ignore that intent and follow RAW.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to include RAI, then the Mawloc can perform its intended function. If you want to adhere to RAW, then you can not assume the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the normal rules for placement, therefore you can place the model anywhere on the table.

Or we could all just shut up about it. No matter what transpires on this forum, I'm going to make sure my opponent knows my intentions regarding the Mawloc before the game. If he doesn't agree I will bring out a second list I have prepared that does not include a Mawloc. I think that's a pretty fair solution until all this chatter settles down.

I'm simply stating that movement through terrain rules does not apply to deep striking rules which are spelled out in a different section of the book. Yes, it's considered movement but has its own rules in an entirely different section of the rules book as it is a very specific form of movement.

Following RaW doesn't neuter the Mawloc, you place your model in front of the enemy unit and then roll the scatter dice. You can't place it in the unit because it's not a template or marker and is not "on the table". Compound this with nothing in the Mawloc's rules that exempt it from the model placement aspect of the deep striking rules, just the rules governing mishaps in a specific situation.

Talk to an ork playerif you want to hear about random events that are not always helpful.

We can agree to disagree and I congratulate you on being fair-minded enough to carry an alternative list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:I hate this RAW + Rules argument it holds no water. RAI is by definition the rules. RAW is a tool we have for interpreting those rules, however NO ONE plays by strict RAW. Otherwise:

Space Wolf Scouts don't have the scouts rule.

Tyranid Close combat weapons are entirely useless and have no in game effect.

Yriel's spear is useless and has no in game effect.

Shrike can't inflitrate with a unit he deploys with.

Ramming is impossible.

IG have useless frag grenades that do nothing.

And my person favourite place a dice on the table with a 6 on the side on rolling it with your hand so the 6 faces upwards is an entirely legal dice roll.

Agnosto do you play all the above rules?

I can honestly tell you that I do not use any of the above rules.
That said, I have a friend that plays space wolfs and he considers the scouts to not have the scout USR.

You are a fellow Tau player, you should be used to codex items that don't work.

I'm not saying that we should use RaW to turn our brains off; I'm just stating that when the rules are clear (as they are with model placement while using deep strike), why not use them?

agnosto wrote:Following RaW doesn't neuter the Mawloc, you place your model in front of the enemy unit and then roll the scatter dice. You can't place it in the unit because it's not a template or marker and is not "on the table". Compound this with nothing in the Mawloc's rules that exempt it from the model placement aspect of the deep striking rules, just the rules governing mishaps in a specific situation.

Even this is open to interpretation. I've used this analogy in a different thread already on a different forum. My wife would kick my ass if I told her "I was just following rules as written" when I remove the tablecloth to "put the dishes on the table." On the table means just that, on the table. On top of another model is still "on the table."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I'm just being nit-picky, so I'm going to stop until I have something more to say rather than trying to beat a dead horse.

You are a fellow Tau player, you should be used to codex items that don't work.

I'm not saying that we should use RaW to turn our brains off; I'm just stating that when the rules are clear (as they are with model placement while using deep strike), why not use them?

Your friend has issues.

Yeah I'm used to codex items that don't work like well half the army list and some that are positively harmful to the army (Aun'Va).

I'm glad you're not in the Gwar "RAW is all that matters FAQs are wrong if they disagre blah blah blah" camp. I still think RaI is clear on this and I would allow someone to choose to DS on top of my unit if they wanted.

This doesn't make the Mawloc uber as this is his only worthwhile attack. A unit of Kroot should beat him up in CC and he has no other ranged weapons. It is his only use and it is still unreliable and still 170 points. It is clear RaI that he allowed to do this so why be TFG and try to rules laywer it?

I would just like to check; Everyone has glossed over the potential for the TftD Mawloc rule could move a unit/tank 1-100" as the term "avoiding" is so ambiguous and does not definitely mean "pick the closest side"/"do not travel through".

If it said, "..whilst not passing through impassable terrain and maintaining squad coherency.." it would be a simpler rule.

Except it DOES NOT NEED TO - the rules for "moving" (as shown by them using the term "move") *state* you cannot move through impassable terrain.

You may not agree that they mean "move" when they write "move", however that does not make you correct.

edit: this is why noone has "glossed over" as you say - noone else ignores that the rulebook term "move" is used.

FlingitNow wrote:
This doesn't make the Mawloc uber as this is his only worthwhile attack. A unit of Kroot should beat him up in CC and he has no other ranged weapons. It is his only use and it is still unreliable and still 170 points. It is clear RaI that he allowed to do this so why be TFG and try to rules laywer it?

I dunno, you'd have to be rolling 6's with that toughness and no power weapon so he gets all his savings throws. Since they can field so many of these things, you just run them across your opponents lines and bam, instant disruption and death; for 1/3 of a 1500 pt army you effectively tie up an entire IG or gunline army while the assault units close in for the kill. It forces you to go mechanized to avoid it and, IMHO, I don't think mech armies are fun to play.

I'll tell you why to rules lawyer it; I play tau and need all the help I can get vs. insane cheese assaulty armies in a meta-game that loves assault.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it DOES NOT NEED TO - the rules for "moving" (as shown by them using the term "move") *state* you cannot move through impassable terrain.

They also add that models may have special rules allowing this. Most folks I have actually talked to think that being able to place models anywhere on the table via the Deepstrike rules allows this. As the example is flying over, tunneling under does not seem a stretch.

/shrug

I'll tell you why to rules lawyer it; I play tau and need all the help I can get vs. insane cheese assaulty armies in a meta-game that loves assault.

That's not metagame that's 40k, the hilarious difference between 40k and Fantasy? A gunline in Fantasy can be an almost auto win army where as a gunline in 40k is auto lose. In competitive play the gunline is dead and mech is the only option. In non-competitive play trying to rules lawyer against obvious intent is being TFG... (we have a Tau player that claims carbines just need to cause a wounding hit to cause a pinning check, pinning is just so irrelevant that nobody bothers arguing with him).

So many things stuff a gunline army it's untrue. These days most armies can assault you in turn 1 a static gunline is dead.

The Mawlocs arrive from reserve so the chances of all 3 coming up and not scattering unfavourably is pretty low. I'd never advise a Tyranid player to take 3 Mawlocs.

Kirsanth - this is in reference to the models being moved out of the way - tunnelling under is the Mawloc, not the modesl being moved.

Given it simply states they are "move"d with no special allowances (THEY are not deepstriking!) then you simply *cannot* move through impassable terrain, unless you havea rule statring otherwise.

FlingitNow wrote:
The Mawlocs arrive from reserve so the chances of all 3 coming up and not scattering unfavourably is pretty low. I'd never advise a Tyranid player to take 3 Mawlocs.

As far as the metagame thing; I go back to 2nd edition so I remember when gunlines worked and in 3rd edition when you had tau and eldar skimmers popping up behind cover, shooting, then dropping behind cover; there was much more shooting in those days. I missed 4th edition so don't know what it was like then.


Hive tyrants give you a +1 on reserve and so do lictors and lictors act as homing beacons so if you can run a lictor up, you can plant a mawloc within 6" with no scatter. Doubtful with as fragile as a lictor is but possible.

All I know is that I want the same guy that wrote the tryanid 'dex to write the next tau one.

Hive tyrants give you a +1 on reserve and so do lictors and lictors act as homing beacons so if you can run a lictor up, you can plant a mawloc within 6" with no scatter. Doubtful with as fragile as a lictor is but possible.

Lictors HAVE to arrive by DS so can't be relied upon to come on before the Mawlocs. Also they have to be in place at the start of their movement phase for the beacon effect. Meaning that you knowing he has a Mawloc have decided to just sit there within 6" of his very killable lictor, not kill it and not bother moving away from it...

If that happens I have no sympathy for you.

All I know is that I want the same guy that wrote the tryanid 'dex to write the next tau one.

QFT

FlingitNow wrote:

Hive tyrants give you a +1 on reserve and so do lictors and lictors act as homing beacons so if you can run a lictor up, you can plant a mawloc within 6" with no scatter. Doubtful with as fragile as a lictor is but possible.

Lictors HAVE to arrive by DS

No, Lictors CANNOT Arrive via Deep Strike.

No, Lictors CANNOT Arrive via Deep Strike.

Whilst technically true the point still stands. They have to start in reserve and then arrive in a fashion akin to DS but governed by their own set of rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it DOES NOT NEED TO - the rules for "moving" (as shown by them using the term "move") *state* you cannot move through impassable terrain.

You may not agree that they mean "move" when they write "move", however that does not make you correct.

edit: this is why noone has "glossed over" as you say - noone else ignores that the rulebook term "move" is used.

As I have pointed out on other occasions on this thread, it is ambiguous wherever or not the term "move" as used in the TftD Mawloc rule is the gospel rulebook term or if its just a verb used in context of the rule. The plain and simple fact that you cannot comprehend or more likely, unwilling to even acknowledge this is a valid counter-argument is quite fail.

As I have pointed out on other occasions on this thread, it is ambiguous wherever or not the term "move" as used in the TftD Mawloc rule is the gospel rulebook term or if its just a verb used in context of the rule. The plain and simple fact that you cannot comprehend or more likely, unwilling to even acknowledge this is a valid counter-argument is quite fail.

But making this arguement could result in the vehicle ending up 10", 20" or more from it's starting place which is just dumb.

RaI is with nosferatu on this as well as RaW so what is the point in arguing?

Razerous - no, it is not a valid counter argument. "Fail" on your part.

You are told to move, and therefore you follow the rules you are given in order to move - those in the rulebook. to do otherwise is something you do not have permission for - you are trying to "move" without using the rulebook rules for such, and have no permission to do so.

I agree that, if there was no rulebook definition of the term then yes, the English would allow you to do as you said. Luckily there IS a rulebook definition for that term so you use it. There is NO CHOICE in the matter.

Just because you see it as valid does not, in a rules debate, actually MAKE it valid. I have acknowledged it as a counter argument, it simply is not valid.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Luckily there IS a rulebook definition for that term

Where. Page number and general location. "move", just so we are clear.

Starting page 11 - "move", "movement", "moving" all refer to this section as a basic.

For example "Infantry move up to 6"" first paragraph under "movement distance"

ANYTHING that uses "move", "movement", "moving" refers to this section as a starting point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Starting page 11 - "move", "movement", "moving" all refer to this section as a basic.

For example "Infantry move up to 6"" first paragraph under "movement distance"

ANYTHING that uses "move", "movement", "moving" refers to this section as a starting point.

Example; Impassable terrain, P13, under Terrain Types. BGB. I think this firm belief of the legitimacy of the "term" move is a bit suspect. Sure, there are rules for movement detailed to a great degree in the movement section of the BGB (P11) but citing that the word "Move" is used as a proper definable referable term.. Nah.

Well, you have rules for using the term "move", you dont have permission to use other rules

Disbelieve it all you like, movement is strongly defined - you are essentially stating that this single example of move is somehow special, when you are given absolutely no reason to think so.

As i said, not a valid argument.

Man, sure seems like the mawloc butthurt is strong in this thread.

Between the "I will rules lawyer because I play gunline tau and cant win" and the "the rules are ambiguous, that means my interpretation is right" we have some real winners.

This seems kind of silly. It says in the rule "Avoiding impassable terrain". The tense suggests that the models have to move while not passing over or through impassable terrain, like a fallback. Saying that if the unit is in the middle of 30 inches of impassable terrain and cant move that they somehow get thrown outside of that 31" is. . . dumb. Unless I am understanding the argument wrong, then the rule works fine. Nothing in it suggests the models can move through impassable terrain. In fact, it specifically says "whilst. . .avoiding impassable terrain".

You must move the squad "WHILST. . avoiding impassable terrain". So if you have no path out of the impassable terrain, the unit is lost.

Yep, most people seem to "get" that "move" means move, as used everywhere else in the rulebook.

Yeah you are right but some people don't want the word move to refer to the movement rules in the ruling they want to basically get out of the attack for no reason other than they don't want it to work because they use other armies...

If they want to rules lawyer it to be ineffective a better approach would be to point out it refers to the Large Blast Template, which of course doesn;t exist in 40k we have a large blast marker...

Doesn't even have to refer to the normal moving rules. It says "move that unit", which I really hope we can all agree is the physical action of picking up the models of the affected unit and placing them in a new spot somewhere on the board. Then it says "whilst maintaining squad coherency", and here (for some reason) squad coherency means what it always means, even though according to rules lawyers, apparently the word "move" doesn't. So you must move the unit WHILST keeping these models no more than 2" from one another. The next piece says "and avoiding impassable terrain" .

If we look at the sentence, we see that it says whilst maintaining AND avoiding. You must maintain AND avoid. Maintain AND avoid. You must MAINTAIN squad coherency, and AVOID impassable terrain, during this move that may or may not refer to an official movement. If you can't MOVE WHILE avoiding impassable terrain, the unit is lost.

Gwar! wrote:What annoys me is GWs oh so unsubtle "BUY NEW SHINEY MODELS!" approach to writing rules. i.e. Carnifex which nid players had 6 of now such, but Tervigons and other new models are OMFG WTF HAXX EPIC!

Except Pyrovores, which suck hard.

agnosto wrote:All I know is that I want the same guy that wrote the tryanid 'dex to write the next tau one.

Are you sure? Wouldn't you rather have a Codex you could use from release day with no problems?

Magical Mawloc avoidance movers wrote:I can go anywhere after I get Mawloc-ed!

You'd be moved by the Tyranid player. There's no change in syntax that alters who resolves the Terror From the Deep text.

I do not firmly believe that the way I have been proposing is the only or right way to do things but I do firmly believe that arguing it the other way, very strongly and definitely, is wrong for the same reason.

If all of the posters here can come to an agreement that avoiding means exactly what you have suggested and could never mean anything else then cool. If you also want to agree that the word move (which could have actually just been a verb which works fine given the context and the extra instructions given in the rules) exactly follows the rules for moving in the movement phase (whilst not being an actual term, its just similar to the rules from p.11, so that works) then fine.

I disagree with that premise. No need to flame. Please refer to rule no.1. Also, there is no need to reply to this as I haven't contested any of your claims nor have I put anything new forward. Just trying to address some previous misunderstandings. Any new insight is welcome.

Razerous wrote:Any new insight is welcome.

Agreed.


new insight.

very much welcome

I've always wanted to spark off a random picture posting, for whatever reason. Now, I feel one with myself!

Random Pictures?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Random Pictures?

As you wish!

oh oh can I join in

We said "random pictures," not self portrait eh, eh?

Sorry, my brother is a big rolling stones fan