To the INAT FAQ guys (not to the masses...)

I am disappointed with the FAQ counsel. You did not take the opportunity to answer Deep Strike specifically in the Organizing a Battle section. However, you did take the space to include, "Q: Can a Mawloc attempt to arrive via Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit? A: Yes it may [clarification]." If you were going to make this call, I would have thought you would have supported the ruling with some amount of logical thought process suppporting the decison.

To elaborate, I am disappointed because...

1. The question is not whether a Mawloc can place it's model for arrival over enemy units. The question is whether any model in any army can arrive on top of enemy models intentionally.

2.The Tyranid Mawloc has special rules which allow it to override the Mishap rule. It has a special rule for burrowing. However, it follows the NORMAL Deep Strike rules for arrival and placement. Thus, any clarification would have made sense to the normal Deep Strike rules section.

3. With all the discussion over this topic, do you feel the topic warranted a bit more of an explanation on this "clarification" than a three word single sentence response to a specific Tyranid model question?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/277249.page (5 pages, 24 hours, locked!)
http://www.adeptuswindycity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4762 (Full Disclosure: I started this thread as well)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242612
http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/tyranids/186699-mawlocs-deep-strike.html
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?s=1ed51b90337f64f8719469f1e60bf850&t=4606 (21 pages and locked!)
http://forum.warpshadow.com/viewtopic.php?t=13509&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=43974bac24529f3f63a7127685e08859
http://splinterfaction.bigforumpro.com/warhammer-40k-f3/mawloc-question-t2796.htm
http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Tactics&thread=23446&page=1#429490
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/mawloc-can-it-or-cant-it.html
http://forums.tauonline.org/index.php?topic=92370.15
http://www.stonypointrefugees.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1805
http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=195363.0

4. The clarification for Mawloc seems to manufacture a special rule specifically for the aforementioned Tyranid model. Thus remaining silent on the outstanding Deep Striking rules and allowing the Tyranid model to ignore various issues that were raised around Deep Striking in general, such as:

- the deep strike requirement to place a model on the table as a placeholder, not on top of any enemy model that's on the field...
- the 1" rule that is supposed to be observed at all times - unless assaulting...
- placing a model for the target deep strike location occuring in the movement phase...
- deep strike arrival counting as movement...
- three phases of the player turn (movement, shooting, assault)...
- models may not occupy the same space as other models...
- the no holding models in place or approximating locations of models, i.e. they must sit on the field of battle on their own...

Example: How does placing a model from your unit onto the field for Deep Strike place holder equate to the 3.2 INAT Mawloc clarification of Deep Strike on top of an enemy unit? Is placing a model on the field the same as placing a model on an enemy model?

Example: In order to follow the INAT 3.2 clarification and follow Deep Strike RAW, wouldn't you have to place your mawloc on top of the plastic Eldar or the Forgeworld IG Resin... or some other army models?

Example: If your model will not support itself and stand in place while ... 'resting' on the other enemy models that are on the table, can it be placed there?

Example: If someone has a beautifully sculpted, hand painted Golden Deamon or otherwise fragile army, but he's playing against a guy with 3 units of 1 Mawloc, and the Tyranid player wants to set his Mawlocs on top the Golden Daemon quality army, how does the Tyranid player observe the INAT clarification, not break the RAW of placing a model from your unit onto the field as a placeholder and do so without pissing his opponent off or breaking the opponent's models?

To be clear, my disappointment is that you missed an opportunity. Wether I agree with your interpretation or not, you failed to explain your decision. The decision you made *seems* to ignore other raised facts which *seem* to have weight in the discussion. Finally, your resulting 'clarification' was not placed in the correct section of the FAQ in my opinion.

Thank you for reading,

Tac

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Exactly. INAT is not law, just suggestion.

Why can't you understand that you don't HAVE to balance your model on top of another model. Just call the Wobbly Model Rule, until they are all out of the way.

More QQ... haaar!

G

@T:

What you're missing is the fact that the INAT.FAQ is not an all out RAW-fest.

It's designed to make the game playable and to avoid units/models having unusable rules as much as possible. Obviously, since the FAQ committee decided to rule in this fashion in this instance, they believed that this ruling was the best compromise between rules and playability for THEIR tournament.

Also, the FAQ in question does not usually go into long, drawn out explanations as to why they ruled in a given manner. If they did so, then the FAQ would be significantly longer than it is without adding anything of substantive value to the document.

it is far from the most outrageous ruling they've made (see Hive Commander totally ludicrous, ignoring RAW and RAI just to make the Nids weaker).

Also there seems to be confusions in your points. The 1" rule pertains to movement. the Mawloc doesn't count as move until it has actually arrived from DS and without this ruling the modle would be entirely useless. It certainly follows RAI and probably follows RAW so why all the fuss?

So yes now you can intentionally DS you assault squad onto that enemy unit. Obviously you just have to hope you scatter off them or you mishap. Granted try this with a DP and the game just blows up but hey.

FlingitNow wrote:Granted try this with a DP and the game just blows up but hey.

Lol. This one sentence has just proven you have no idea how the rules work.

A Drop Pod REDUCES scatter. If you Drop Pod directly onto an enemy model, you cannot reduce the scatter to avoid it, so it Deep Strike Mishaps.

I haven't read the INAT.FAQ to see if this is addressed, but do you think we could extrapolate this ruling to include the Monolith. For example, if you wanted to push a unit off of or away from an objective by dropping right on top of them?

Sorry to have disappointed you on this matter...it certainly wasn't my intention to do so!


I understand perfectly the position that you're coming from and my explanation as to why I chose to write the rulings the way I did was because often I've found that the more detailed my answers are the more people tend to get confused by them and/or not understand what is being said. Because there are many gamers out there who aren't aware of all the minutiae surrounding this issue, so if we put out an answer explaining how you're supposed to mark the Deep Strike point with a marker, then roll, etc, a whole lot people would just be like 'what the heck are they talking about here? What are they even clarifying?'

The fact is, the INAT is not a rulebook, it is a document that is supposed to let you know how judges will rule on an issue if you were to come to them during a tournament and ask them the question. And the meat of the issue is: Are you allowed to Deep Strike over an enemy unit? By answering 'yes' to that question 99% of gamers will understand what we're saying and know how to proceed.

If you want to set your initial Deep Striking model on top of your opponent's models (assuming he's okay with that) or whether you want to mark the initial spot with a marker or your finger, etc, that's up to the players. But the point is, you're allowed to do it.


Now, if you're interested in the council's stance regarding the issues behind the ruling, I'm happy to provide those to you here, but I do really believe that these things would only end up cluttering the document and confusing most players if I bothered to put them into the actual FAQ in some way.

It is important to note that all the points I'm explaining below are only our opinions and are sometimes based on things beyond the RAW that we normally consider for the INAT (such as how we believe most players naturally play an issue).


1) Q: Does the initial Deep Striking model in a unit have to be placed on the tabletop?

A: In our opinion, no. The term 'on the table' here refers to anywhere within the playing area (typically a 4'x6' area) rather than a model being physically on the table. This is why we have ruled that you are allowed to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit. Of course only a few units actually WANT to do this, and that's why we've ruled in those particular codex areas rather than try to make a general Deep Strike clarification.


2) Q: Is Deep Strike movement?

A: Yes, we consider the act of arriving via Deep Strike as movement, which is exactly why models who are Deep Striking can't be placed within 1" of enemy models.


3) Q: If Deep Striking is movement, how can the initial model be placed within 1" of an enemy model?
A: Yes, once the unit arrives via Deep Strike it is considered to have made a special movement to that point, but in our opinions the actual matter of determining where the unit will arrive (placing the initial model and rolling for scatter) is *not* considered movement...this is simply determining where the unit will actually arrive.

This concept is backed up by how we've seen most people play...there are some who believe that the initial placed model fully counts as being on the table with the scatter being some sort of bizzaro movement itself, but most everyone we've ever played against recognizes that placing the model and scattering them is an abstract idea, which is why that initial model is able to scatter fully over an enemy unit if the roll is high enough to put him on the other side of it.


4) Q: If you can Deep Strike directly over enemy units how do you put the initial model down?
A: In our opinion this is covered by the 'wobbly model' rule...if you're concerned about paint jobs (as you should be), mark the spot with your finger, a die, etc until the final Deep Strike point is determined.



So hopefully that clears things up a bit as to the reasoning behind the rulings...and I'll see if I can't add a general Deep Strike clarification to the next update that will satisfy you a bit more without going too crazy into the realm of confusing people.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:I haven't read the INAT.FAQ to see if this is addressed, but do you think we could extrapolate this ruling to include the Monolith. For example, if you wanted to push a unit off of or away from an objective by dropping right on top of them?

Yeah, we ruled on the four units (that I can think of) that want to drop on enemy units:

Monoliths, Pylons, Spore Mines (Mycetic Spores) and Mawlocs.



And also I want to point out that the one time GW did rule on this matter (Spore Mines in the last Tyranid codex) they ruled that it indeed was fine to Deep Strike directly onto enemy models.

Hurray for yakface, purveyor of fine FAQS and reasonable rulings.

Are you participating in games this year? or are you a judge/babysitter?

This isn't the only instance of this either. White Dwarf a few months ago had a planet strike strategy add on section. The Orks was called 'It's Raining Orks'

In this strategy, the Ork player got something like 1d6+3 Orks (generic choppa slugga boyz) that deep strike as independant units (each Ork was a seperate unit). If the Ork lands on an enemy unit, instead of a mishap the Ork is based in B2B and counts as assaulting and strikes at Initiative 10 for that round.

Clearly, the intention of both this rule and the Mawloc's rule is to intentionally deepstrike onto a unit. Arguments to the contrary is just obstinate and indeed, QQ

Lol. This one sentence has just proven you have no idea how the rules work.

A Drop Pod REDUCES scatter. If you Drop Pod directly onto an enemy model, you cannot reduce the scatter to avoid it, so it Deep Strike Mishaps

Good point well made. I'll go back to my bridge

Yakface,

First let me say, I only voiced the critisism because I value the INAT FAQ counsel's opionion. I use the INAT FAQ as an aid or tool in the hobby I enjoy. I appreciate the effort that must go into creating and maintaining the document(s). I also consider it one of the leading compilations to be used in tandum with the official GW books and FAQs. Overall, I think you've once again put together a great tool. I like the addition of the appendix and having a full list of all IA models along with their current rule location is handy. Perhaps I should have said as much in the original post...

Next, I believe in the benefits from constructive critisism and intelligent discussion. Thank you for taking the time to provide a courteous, intelligent and detailed response. Whether I agree or not with the conclusion, it does help me understand the intent and perspective from which the counsel came to the conclusions it did and why updates were placed in specific sections.

Final thought, I look forward to any update to the Deep Strike general rule - cheers in advance for the consideration.

Happy gaming,

Tac

Kroot Loops wrote:
Clearly, the intention of both this rule and the Mawloc's rule is to intentionally deepstrike onto a unit. Arguments to the contrary is just obstinate and indeed, QQ

"Clearly" my *%€&. Please do not use "clear intention" and GW in the same sentence.

As usual the fault lies with GW. If they really intended every unit between Heaven and Hot Place to be able to intentionally target Deep Strikes on enemy units, they should have made it crystal clear in the rules.

Would you as military commander, condone this kind of tactic? When you know that it is almost a guaranteed suicide for the unit involved? Unless something actually goes wrong with the plan ( scatter ). You would be executed for gross incompetence and treason. Picture this. You are an Astartes Brother-Sergeant sent to squash a rebellion. The ship has reached orbit just as the rebels are overrunning the loyalist positions down on the planet. In order to facilitate a last minute rescue, the resident Tech-Priest says he can send you down via teleport.
"Wonderful!" you say.
"Yes, Sir. In order to maximize the shock effect of your arrival, we will calibrate the coordinates to coincide with those of the heretics".
"Err...Excuse me but do you mean we will emerge right in the middle of the enemy unit?"
"Exactly."
"But that means my squad will be destroyed!"
"Oh, do not worry. We actually count on the 35.657% error margin to scatter you off the exact enemy center point."
"......Brother Petronius! Execute this traitor immediately!"

I've always thought drop pods should be able to attempt to land on enemy units and cause damage when they "hit." It matches with their fluff.

Yes, because Mawlocs will get a severe talking to by the Norn Queen when they get back I assume?

To the masses that had insulting, or demeaning comments,

I wish you would have taken a more constructive stance, but this is a public forum. We are all entitled to our opinons.

I understand the FAQ counsel believes there are GW precidents for allowing models to deep strike onto enemy units. I understand they felt that the language requiring a player to place a model on the table is generic and not specific. However, I think my OP about the lost opportunity is on point. I think the question in play is a general question about Deep Strike. If you don't like that I've asked the question, you are free not to read my post... but posting QQ is less than helpful.

In the Mawloc's case, I think most agree the model Deep Strikes as normal. It has a special mishap if something goes wrong. Furthermore, I don't think the Deep Strike rule is confused by most players - but that is the real debate... what is normal for deep striking? That's where the detailed technical discussion starts and thus the conundrum. If the Deep Strike rule by most players is understood that you must place your model on the table and you don't place models on enemy models, then why the interpretation result that they landed on. It *seems* a fair question. Perhaps this is an American perspective, but when I see something I don't like or agree with, I challenge it.

If you are genuinely interested in *my* perspecitve, I think it's generally better to error to the side of caution when making 'clarifications' in FAQs. I think sticking as close to RAW allows for the most common ground amongst all players.

In my opinion, the conservative interpretation of the Tyranid Mawloc and the RB's Deep Strike rule would have been....

- Tyranid Mawloc Deep Strikes pursuant to the normal rules, but notably it has a special Mishap result special rule when/if that should happen. (RAW)

- The RB says to place a placeholder model from your unit onto the table to identify the intended point you wish to Deep Strike (RAW),

- The Deep Strike rule says the result of unit placement from Deep Strike (after scatter is rolled) is movement. (RAW)

- The Deep Striking placeholder is interpreted as the point you wish to ultimately move, i.e. this is your intended movement point should you get a 'hit' result (RAI)

- The 1" rule says you cannot intentionally move within 1" of the enemy unless you are assaulting. (RAW)

- There are three phases to the game, Movement, shooting and assault - Deep Strike happens in the movement phase. (RAW)

- Since the result of Deep Striking is a unit that has moved, the act of placing a place holder and the subsequent scatter are done in the movement phase and acts of movement (RAI)

- The Mishap explanation says you may only Mishap when something has gone (RAW)

- Therefore, you cannot Mishap when something has gone "right" or as planned. (RAI)

In summary, a conservative interpretation would have been, placing a model within 1" or ontop of enemy is NOT placing a model on the table. Doing so is intentionally violating the 1" rule violation of the 1" rule since Deep Striking does count as movement. Trying to cause a Mishap is a plan, it is not something going wrong aka a MISHAP. Since the Mawloc Deep Strikes as normal per the RB rules, it cannot be intentionally placed any closer than 1" to enemy models. Should a Mawloc mishap, it has a special rule.

I understand the FAQ console's perspective, but I cannot agree with the conclusion. I cannot reconsile why the counsel decided to overlook some of the core concepts of the 40K game in their decision with these deep striking specific unit interpretations. However, I will try to abide by them in lieu of an appeal to the ruling.

I honestly do think they made the wrong call here. Since I value the INAT FAQ as a tool, I reserve the right to voice my disappointment. I also reserve the right to plead for a repeal or reversal of the ruling. If they listen, great. If they don't, I'm glad I tried.

As previously stated, I applaud the overall compendium of information. I think the INAT FAQ is an increadibly powerful asset for many gamers out there. Even if I respectfully disagree with them here and wish they would reconsider their ruling, I do value the effort and final product.

To those that would respond with "Then don't use it... QQ... or the like mannered comments." I can only say, I appreciate your feedback and thank you for voicing your perspective as well.

I've said my peace. Even if you do not agree with my perspective, hopefully I've explained my point of view and perspective - if you were genuinely interested.

This will be my final comment on this thread.

Tac

Tactica I have a question for you and I agree with your RAW in the most part. I'd argue that the rule state on page 14 a model can't be placed on impassible terrain (which other models are), so by that rule you can't place a model on top of another for DS whether or not the placing part is considered movement.

However what I don;t understand is what you think the Mawloc is for. It has only 3 attacks and WS3 so is no great shakes in close combat and everyone agrees it's only threat comes from the DS attack. If you can not intentionally aim this at a unit what is the point of it? why have an attack that you can not directly aim at the enemy?

That is why people are saying QQ (not me) it is not that you are wrong on RAW it is that the model has a clear purpose and you are claim the enemy must hope this purpose happens by accident and the model can't use it's sole purposeful attack deliberately. which seems a pretty odd conclusion you must admit.

Don't think of this as can units DS on top of other units intentionally think of it as what use is the Mawlocs attack if it can not be aimed at the enemy?

FAQ counsel aside, the problem IMHO arises from the player base.

The Mawloc unit introduced a mechanic into the game that encouraged attempts to get mishaps. A portion of the player base then looked within the rules to find out how they could rules lawyer/rules twist/whatever to increase chances for mishap and now want to present it as RAW and that it was possible all along.

I really wonder just what percentage of said player base would have looked at the rules to increase mishaps had the Mawloc unit and game mechanic for dealing with mishaps rolls had never been introduced.

Nice points you bring up Tactica and sadly when an FAW/Errata for the Tyranid codex does come out, if the Mawloc issue is only issued a FAQ, there will be plenty of people that will then just dismiss it out of hand as house rules and continue to try to increase their mishap chance.

Brother Ranses are you genuinely telling me that GW intentional wrote the Mawloc rules such that it could not target enemy units?

If it is FAQed then there is only one way it is going to go and that is that the Mawloc can atarget enemy units because it is totally pointless if it can't.

Considering that the special attack ONLY happens on a MISHAP, yes, I would consider that GW wrote the rule for it to only happen in the event of a MISHAP.

Considering that the special attack ONLY happens on a MISHAP, yes, I would consider that GW wrote the rule for it to only happen in the event of a MISHAP.

Do you genuinely beleive GW created an attack that costs 170 points that you can't aim at your enemies?

You really beleive this? Will you accept the FAQ when it comes out if it covers this question? Cause I can 100% guarantee you GW will not rule that their shiney new £30 model isn't entirely useless.

I think he's running along the same logic as Tactica in that since it is called a 'Mishap' and the rulebook states it means 'something has gone wrong' you can't intentionally cause one, since if you do it means it's gone correctly and thus invalidate it.

So much read into that little phrase.

I think he's running along the same logic as Tactica in that since it is called a 'Mishap' and the rulebook states it means 'something has gone wrong' you can't intentionally cause one, since if you do it means it's gone correctly and thus invalidate it.

So much read into that little phrase.

I'm not saying he is wrong on RAW I'm justr asking why an attack would exist that can't be intentionally aimed at the enemy. Why you have to aim elsewhere and hope you miss and it lands on target.

Yes the attack occurs instead of a mishap but the whole point of the Mawloc is the attack so it should be possible to intentionally aim it at the enemy.

I really don't understand why people think GW would create an attack that can't be intentionally aim at the enemy. I haven't seen anyone come up with a reason as to why on earth they would and I certainly can't fathom one.

Why do you think the Mawloc is allowed to re-burrow? So you get as many chances to get a lucky scatter as possible.

I think it's feasible to believe that GW wrote a rule that takes advantage of a mishap, and they would have thought it fun to have a unit that you intentionally try to mishap in order to see the chaos it causes.

However, being the industrious opportunists that we are, we saw the inch and decided to take the yard. Yes, the rule is written so that you try to get a mishap. No, I don't think the rule is written for you to get it the majority of the time. It's just supposed to be a fun effect that happens every 3 turns or so with a lucky scatter. That's why it re-burrows.

FlingitNow wrote:Brother Ranses are you genuinely telling me that GW intentional wrote the Mawloc rules such that it could not target enemy units?

This isn't the best logic to support your position, Flingit. No one knows how they designed it, until they release the FAQ. Sure, we can all see that it would work more efficiently to DS directly onto units in order to increase your chances, but there's a difference between how GW writes a rule to work and how a rule works best. Sometimes the most efficient way is not allowed by the rules.

Burger, not so much that it is "something has gone wrong" but that by game design (scatter dice) a mishap is a chance occurrence as a result of deep striking. By allowing what Fling proposes you are now changing a chance occurrence into a planned occurrence by increasing the chances of it happening.

By your logic Fling, my 500pt/$50 wolf guard unit in TDA should be able to assault after deep striking since they cost so much in RL money and game points.

In addition, the model is str 6, toughness 6, and 6 wounds Is all that wasted for a model only intent on targetted "deep striking"? He can also get Furious Charge, Poisoned Attacks, and Regeneration. So more then just a tactical mishap model.

Some times, it's GW fault. This time? It's the community.

You don't want me to use clearly? Very well. The only benefit that Mawloc has over the Trygon is it's Terror from the Deep rule (Notice it's not called Accident from the Deep). To say that this effect only happens by accident is.. well.. I'm not sure what to call it politely, perhaps a minutia obsessed point of view.

As for:

Why do you think the Mawloc is allowed to re-burrow? So you get as many chances to get a lucky scatter as possible.

I rather think it's so it can get as many chances to use it's special attack as possible. (which, by the way, is twice in a five round match, and 3 in a six or seven round match. However most players report their Mawloc doesn't survive after the first emergence)

The Terror from the deep rule even says 'if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model', not 'if a Mawloc scatters onto a point occupied by another model'

the exasperated responses to this is probably because it certainly appears to be a straw grasping argument from those who don't want to face the prospect of castle disruption or the vulnerability of troops/heavy support pill boxed in terrain.

Burger, not so much that it is "something has gone wrong" but that by game design (scatter dice) a mishap is a chance occurrence as a result of deep striking. By allowing what Fling proposes you are now changing a chance occurrence into a planned occurrence by increasing the chances of it happening.

By your logic Fling, my 500pt/$50 wolf guard unit in TDA should be able to assault after deep striking since they cost so much in RL money and game points.

In addition, the model is str 6, toughness 6, and 6 wounds Is all that wasted for a model only intent on targetted "deep striking"? He can also get Furious Charge, Poisoned Attacks, and Regeneration. So more then just a tactical mishap model.

I don't see the logic behind allowing the wolfguard to assault after DS. It is more like allowing the wolfguard to assault the enemy when they can assault rather than have them assault in arandomn direction and hope there are some enemy in the way.

The T6 and W6 are to ensure he can try to make his attack more than once. Poisoned atatcks makes him weaker and furious charge with WS3 and A3 is not scary your wolfguard unit would murder him.

The unit as no value to eth army beyond it's deep strike attack, that is hwy it can re-burrow and why you would do that every turn. using it for anything else is pointless.

I think it's feasible to believe that GW wrote a rule that takes advantage of a mishap, and they would have thought it fun to have a unit that you intentionally try to mishap in order to see the chaos it causes.

But would they design an entire 170 unit who's only function is to do that?

This isn't the best logic to support your position, Flingit. No one knows how they designed it, until they release the FAQ. Sure, we can all see that it would work more efficiently to DS directly onto units in order to increase your chances, but there's a difference between how GW writes a rule to work and how a rule works best. Sometimes the most efficient way is not allowed by the rules.

True but GW intentions here are pretty clear to anyone that isn't deliberately trying to pervert them. Just like Bjorn's save which by RAW is entirely useless, we all know what it does. Like the Doom's 3++ save again we know what it does. Like we know the Swarmlord counts as a tyrant for his psychic powers so that paroxysm doesn't last forever.

Aye, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, fellas. Just trying to provide a different point of view. I'm completely fine with playing a Tyranid playing and allowing the deep strike to target a unit.

I see the arguments, but when I first read the rule that's how I thought it worked (no targeting units). My mind's just a hard one to change, but I'll come around in a month or so...

I'll come around in a month or so..

What when the FAQ comes out

Oh they haven't released it yet? Strange...

Fling, FC gives +1 strt and +1 initiative. So your tactical mishap model is actually Str7 and initiative 5 on the charge with 4 attacks.

Also, poisoned attacks wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness. In addition since the Mawloc is str6/7 he also gets to reroll wounds on models with toughness 6 or less.

Please know the rules when trying to debate that the Mawloc is nothing more then the tactical mishap model you want to describe.

And my Blood Claws are WS3, which has not stopped them from roflstomping units at str 4.

Fling, FC gives +1 strt and +1 initiative. So your tactical mishap model is actually Str7 and initiative 5 on the charge with 4 attacks.

Also, poisoned attacks wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness. In addition since the Mawloc is str6/7 he also gets to reroll wounds on models with toughness 6 or less.

Please know the rules when trying to debate that the Mawloc is nothing more then the tactical mishap model you want to describe.

Well that was a lot of shouting about nothing. a S6-7 model doesn't really need to wound on 4+ does it? it wounds mostly on a 2+ already... those 4 attacks equate to 2 hits and yeah most times 2 dead enemy (well less than 1 dead enemy against assault terminators) models woo hoo I just smashed 12 points worth of orks, then they strike back and I'm very dead... What a great way to spend 170 points.

I know the rules the only benefit of this model is the DS attack. It is little to no threat otherwise. I'd ask you to actually look at the rules for the model in question before describing it as anything other than a 1 trick pony. Yes it has a high strength but with so few attacks and a poor WS and no scything talons that high str is pretty useless.

Compare with a Trygon on the charge with 7 attacks hitting on 3s with re-roll (so will hit 8 out of 9 times) on average over 3 times as many hits as the Mawloc...

Your own limitations make the Mawloc a one trick pony.

Beyond what I have already pointed out, 6 wounds and a 3+ save. And assaulting assault terminators? Are you just picking a hard unit to make your point? Why not just pick a C'Tan?

Also, unless faced with a force weapon or equivalent, he is not dying to insta-kill.

Brother Ramses wrote:FAQ counsel aside, the problem IMHO arises from the player base.

You don't say.

The Mawloc unit introduced a mechanic into the game that encouraged attempts to get mishaps. A portion of the player base then looked within the rules to find out how they could rules lawyer/rules twist/whatever to increase chances for mishap and now want to present it as RAW and that it was possible all along.

I see it as a new unit with a new set of rules that forces players to re-examine their old assumptions. Everyone just assumed you can't aim a deep striking unit at an enemy because it you did that and got the hit, you were screwed. Now we have a unit whose sole function is to deep strike onto enemy units and has rules that tell you what happens when it does arrive on an enemy unit instead of the normal mishap. Just because no one ever wanted to do it before doesn't mean it was never possible before.

It's not all that different from deep striking drop pods before there were inertial guidance systems to control scatter. Now, aiming a drop pod into a gap between enemy units practically guarantees you'll land where you want. It used to be very risky. Similarly drop pods used to be able to fire when they landed because their entry stated that they could. Now they can't but we didn't get a rule explicitly telling us that the old rule had changed. We figured out using the vehicle movement and firing rules combined with the deep strike rules. This situation is similar.

Nice points you bring up Tactica and sadly when an FAW/Errata for the Tyranid codex does come out, if the Mawloc issue is only issued a FAQ, there will be plenty of people that will then just dismiss it out of hand as house rules and continue to try to increase their mishap chance.

I think it's far more likely that the it will be those who think the mawloc only works by accident who will have a problem with the FAQ whenever it comes.

Brother Ramses wrote:Your own limitations make the Mawloc a one trick pony.

Beyond what I have already pointed out, 6 wounds and a 3+ save. And assaulting assault terminators? Are you just picking a hard unit to make your point? Why not just pick a C'Tan?

Also, unless faced with a force weapon or equivalent, he is not dying to insta-kill.

What you're refusing to acknowledge is that for 30 points more you get a model that is more than twice as good in CC as a Mawloc, just as survivable, leaves a tunnel other 'nids can deepstrike through, is incapable of mishap (works like a drop pod), and has 6 Str 5 AP 5 shots.

And seriously? Gee, lets see. Your blood claws put out what, 40 attacks on the charge? Yeah, that'll be effective. 4 attacks? Not so much.

Arschbombe wrote: Just because no one ever wanted to do it before doesn't mean it was never possible before.

Spore mines have been doing it for years.

Kroot Loops wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Your own limitations make the Mawloc a one trick pony.

Beyond what I have already pointed out, 6 wounds and a 3+ save. And assaulting assault terminators? Are you just picking a hard unit to make your point? Why not just pick a C'Tan?

Also, unless faced with a force weapon or equivalent, he is not dying to insta-kill.

What you're refusing to acknowledge is that for 30 points more you get a model that is more than twice as good in CC as a Mawloc, just as survivable, leaves a tunnel other 'nids can deepstrike through, is incapable of mishap (works like a drop pod), and has 6 Str 5 AP 5 shots.

And seriously? Gee, lets see. Your blood claws put out what, 40 attacks on the charge? Yeah, that'll be effective. 4 attacks? Not so much.

QFT

If the mawloc can't intentionally deep strike on models, there is no fething point to use him. He would be a complete waste of points all together and would be better spent on a trygon. I think a lot of the people who are commenting on this thread need to ACTUALLY read the entry and see all the options.

Sneezypanda wrote:

If the mawloc can't intentionally deep strike on models, there is no fething point to use him. He would be a complete waste of points all together and would be better spent on a trygon. I think a lot of the people who are commenting on this thread need to ACTUALLY read the entry and see all the options.

An we all know that GW would NEVER make a model and rules that wasn't 100% fantastic in an army....*cough* space pope *cough*...... *cough* vespid *cough*

They also never write rules very clearly ** cough*** mawloc **cough*** (See, I can do that too)


The point of the model is to EAT the guys, and the fluff supports that the sole purpose is eat and go back down and come back up.

My wolf lord is only 30pts more then my wolf guard battle leader so therefore my wolf guard battle leader should be able to consume the Tyranids with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!

What you think he should be and what he does based on your opinion of his points cost or model cost is stupid as hell.

Mishap is a chance occurrence from deep striking, all you want to do is increase those chances to trigger Terror from the Deep.

This is akin to rapid firing old Blood Claws so they did not have to assault with them when within 6". You were not allowed to use a game mechanic to break another. Exactly what you are trying to do by placing your Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy mode to increase your chance of a mishap to trigger Terror from the Deep.

No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

Brother Ramses wrote:My wolf lord is only 30pts more then my wolf guard battle leader so therefore my wolf guard battle leader should be able to consume the Tyranids with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!

What you think he should be and what he does based on your opinion of his points cost or model cost is stupid as hell.

Mishap is a chance occurrence from deep striking, all you want to do is increase those chances to trigger Terror from the Deep.

This is akin to rapid firing old Blood Claws so they did not have to assault with them when within 6". You were not allowed to use a game mechanic to break another. Exactly what you are trying to do by placing your Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy mode to increase your chance of a mishap to trigger Terror from the Deep.

Well this about shuts down any doubts as to the logic behind your reasoning. Please have your blood pressure medication on hand when the FAQ comes out.

One thing to consider is that GW is finally expanding their army and unit specific rules that encompass the entire game and range of abilities. They are starting to use all of the stat lines and vary when certain abilities work/how they work. We saw some of this with the chaos and eldar books initially, but now we see a lot with the marines, IG, SW and nids. There are tons of units that break what would be considered to be "normal" mechanics of the game. The Mawloc is just one of many recent examples.

why don't you guys just make a house rule where you play..... it's a lot easier.

FlingitNow wrote:Tactica I have a question for you... <snio>... what you think the Mawloc is for[?] It has only 3 attacks and WS3 so is no great shakes in close combat and everyone agrees it's only threat comes from the DS attack. If you can not intentionally aim this at a unit what is the point of it? why have an attack that you can not directly aim at the enemy? <snip>... what use is the Mawlocs attack if it can not be aimed at the enemy?

Fling,

I was just going to read the comments. I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore. However, since you asked a fair question in a genuine tone, I'm happy to respond.

First, I do not assume to know what the designers had in mind. I also do not assume that all models GW creates rules for are optimized to be cost effective. I think there are plenty of examples in plenty of books where someone can argue that a model is not fairly pointed or whether or not a unit is even worth taking considering their other choices for the same FOC slot in their codex... but that caveat aside, I will entertain your questions as I think it's a good excersize in seeing all points.

Second, when I was growing up, my father used to say, if you are a Hammer, you will see everything as a Nail. I think this can happen to all of us from time to time... IG are supposed to shoot, bugs are supposed to get to combat, etc... However, there is more to any army and this game than a single threaded function. Who says bugs cannot be tactical? I think the new bug codex has afforded the player many more choices, combos, and 'tricks' than we've had before. I see the Mawloc not as a the end all comparison to a Trygon Prime, but as another trick in the tool belt that is 'nids. I would dare say that a Trygon Prime would be taken over a Trygon any day of the week, but a Trygon and a Mawloc both have a place in a list when played to their strengths.

Ok, on to your question... Let's look at the Mawloc from another perspective. How many monstrous creatures does the Nid codex have that can get across the table into the enemy lines guaranteed on turn 2? Sure, there are hive commander upgrades to increase odds, but what monstrous creatures are guaranteed to get there on turn two? The Mawloc has a special burrowing rule that allows it to deploy turn 1, and have it guaranteed to come up on turn 2 in the enemy lines. If the tyranid player goes first, burrows it immediately, he doesn't even have to risk it being shot at.

I'm sure more than one player knows the value of presenting multiple threats to the enemy all at once. It's a viable tactic for the bugs, I don't care what you kill, just as long as plenty makes it to your lines. If I present you with enough threats, you won't be able to deal with them all. the Mawloc now offers the Tyranid player just that threat very early in the game. Should the Tyranid player be 'lucky' enough to also roll a 4+ or a 3+ in many cases with list builds, it's going to have even more threats.

Consider opponents, how many Tau, IG, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle... (all of which it can insti-kill) players are going to be happy to have a monstrous creature in their lines on turn 2?

Now consider how much enemy positioning disruption and draw of fire this bug will take to bring down. That's all the more time for the poisoned hormagaunts or the genestealers to make it across. Should you get other reserves and the enemy be forced to pick between threats, all the better. Tactically, this piece gives you several options... tricks to consider in bringing the full force of your army to bare.

Consider a force multiplier increasing odds... if I was to take two or even three mawlocs... deploy them all turn 1 and then dump them into the enemies lines... now I have multiple guaranteed threats that they have to deal with.

Sure it only has WS 3 and 3 attacks (4 on charge), S, T, W = 6 and 3+ armor... that you can upgrade... maybe that's not as good as other h=t=h beasts in the bug list, but tell a Tau player those stats suck. Not to mention, just because it can't single handedly kill Abaddon, doesn't mean that it won't just wreck enemy armor, or tarpit a unit, or draw fire from the main force, or cause the enemy to move their lines and react to the new threat, or the idea of th thing along just POSSIBLY errupting into the enemy lines can cause your opponent to deploy differently and cautiously to minimize the possibility of a mishap. The possibility that it can do it over and over again... well, to the enemy, it just has to be dealt with! This is an attention getter. It's a piece that must be addressed. Since 5th Edition is a troops game, this means that while your enemy is dealing with your non-troop threats, you are giving your real plan more time to unfold.

Now there is the off chance that you scatter 1/3 of the time. Take three of them and improve your odds. Should it scatter, it doesn't immediately roll on the Mishap table, no it gets to stay on the field no matter what. That allows the tyranid player to be very aggressive with the threat, and should it happen to scatter ontop of the enemy, all the better. Should it scatter into a less than optimal position, you get to burrow again and do it all over again.

A turn 2, deep striking monster with good save, upgrades, ability to disappear and reappear (unless delt with), guaranteed rule not to mishap should something go wrong and if it happens to "mishap" it gets to do damage to the enemy - AND something that may effect your opponent's deployment and positioning both when the thing is on the field and when its not... well, I'm not sure if it's pointed right or not, but I can think of more than one army that would like to have the model to use in their list for 170 points!

If the bugs have better options, so be it. That happens from time to time. Mawlocs can hang out with my Vespids, my ork Tank Bustas, my IG Ogryn and my Chaos possessed. They can always use the company. However, I don't see it that way. I see the Mawloc as having plenty of tactical potential - even when it can't intentionally Deep Strike on top of the enemy.

Fling, thanks for the question. I hope that's what you were looking for.

Cheers,

Tac

Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?

ChrisCP wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?

Does his phrasing matter? He meant that, when you roll the 2D6+scatter, that doesn't make you mishap. It's only when you hit an enemy model/impassable terrain do you mishap.

Tactica wrote:To the INAT FAQ guys (not to the masses...)

I am disappointed with the FAQ counsel. You did not take the opportunity to answer Deep Strike specifically in the Organizing a Battle section. However, you did take the space to include, "Q: Can a Mawloc attempt to arrive via Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit? A: Yes it may [clarification]." If you were going to make this call, I would have thought you would have supported the ruling with some amount of logical thought process suppporting the decison.

To elaborate, I am disappointed because...

1. The question is not whether a Mawloc can place it's model for arrival over enemy units. The question is whether any model in any army can arrive on top of enemy models intentionally.

2.The Tyranid Mawloc has special rules which allow it to override the Mishap rule. It has a special rule for burrowing. However, it follows the NORMAL Deep Strike rules for arrival and placement. Thus, any clarification would have made sense to the normal Deep Strike rules section.

3. With all the discussion over this topic, do you feel the topic warranted a bit more of an explanation on this "clarification" than a three word single sentence response to a specific Tyranid model question?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/277249.page (5 pages, 24 hours, locked!)
http://www.adeptuswindycity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4762 (Full Disclosure: I started this thread as well)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242612
http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/tyranids/186699-mawlocs-deep-strike.html
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?s=1ed51b90337f64f8719469f1e60bf850&t=4606 (21 pages and locked!)
http://forum.warpshadow.com/viewtopic.php?t=13509&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=43974bac24529f3f63a7127685e08859
http://splinterfaction.bigforumpro.com/warhammer-40k-f3/mawloc-question-t2796.htm
http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Tactics&thread=23446&page=1#429490
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/mawloc-can-it-or-cant-it.html
http://forums.tauonline.org/index.php?topic=92370.15
http://www.stonypointrefugees.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1805
http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=195363.0

4. The clarification for Mawloc seems to manufacture a special rule specifically for the aforementioned Tyranid model. Thus remaining silent on the outstanding Deep Striking rules and allowing the Tyranid model to ignore various issues that were raised around Deep Striking in general, such as:

- the deep strike requirement to place a model on the table as a placeholder, not on top of any enemy model that's on the field...
- the 1" rule that is supposed to be observed at all times - unless assaulting...
- placing a model for the target deep strike location occuring in the movement phase...
- deep strike arrival counting as movement...
- three phases of the player turn (movement, shooting, assault)...
- models may not occupy the same space as other models...
- the no holding models in place or approximating locations of models, i.e. they must sit on the field of battle on their own...

Example: How does placing a model from your unit onto the field for Deep Strike place holder equate to the 3.2 INAT Mawloc clarification of Deep Strike on top of an enemy unit? Is placing a model on the field the same as placing a model on an enemy model?

Example: In order to follow the INAT 3.2 clarification and follow Deep Strike RAW, wouldn't you have to place your mawloc on top of the plastic Eldar or the Forgeworld IG Resin... or some other army models?

Example: If your model will not support itself and stand in place while ... 'resting' on the other enemy models that are on the table, can it be placed there?

Example: If someone has a beautifully sculpted, hand painted Golden Deamon or otherwise fragile army, but he's playing against a guy with 3 units of 1 Mawloc, and the Tyranid player wants to set his Mawlocs on top the Golden Daemon quality army, how does the Tyranid player observe the INAT clarification, not break the RAW of placing a model from your unit onto the field as a placeholder and do so without pissing his opponent off or breaking the opponent's models?

To be clear, my disappointment is that you missed an opportunity. Wether I agree with your interpretation or not, you failed to explain your decision. The decision you made *seems* to ignore other raised facts which *seem* to have weight in the discussion. Finally, your resulting 'clarification' was not placed in the correct section of the FAQ in my opinion.

Thank you for reading,

Tac

OK, here you go:'

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Tac

Natfka wrote:
The rules dont say this anywhere under deepstriking. You are allowed to place your marker model anywhere on the battlefield. However you are stupid if you have normal deep striking units and place them on top of something. Actual rule wording for deep striking is "place units ANYWHERE on the table"

The disagreement is what the table is actually defined as. Many people argue that the table includes anything that is also in contact with the physical table (e.g., terrain and other models). Some of us contend that opponents' models are not a part of the table as they shift and move whereas everything else is static. A model may be removed from the table; however a piece of terrain or the table leg is an immovable and permanent fixture. To me, "the table" means just that. If it moves or is able to move, it's not a part of the table and therefor can not be defined as "the table".

So yes, you may place your model anywhere on the table but the point of contention remains in what exactly "the table" is.

Natfka wrote:Tac

- the deep strike requirement to place a model on the table as a placeholder, not on top of any enemy model that's on the field...
Tac

*Prays GW does a clear concise FAQ.... like tomorrow*

Brother Ramses wrote:

Natfka wrote:Tac

- the deep strike requirement to place a model on the table as a placeholder, not on top of any enemy model that's on the field...
Tac

Where does it say this about deep striking? "not on top of any model that's on the field...." I dont know. Without this its an emotional arguement, not a rules arguement.
The rules dont say this anywhere under deepstriking. You are allowed to place your marker model anywhere on the battlefield. However you are stupid if you have normal deep striking units and place them on top of something. Actual rule wording for deep striking is "place units ANYWHERE on the table"

Actual wording for the Movement Phase (in which Deep Strike takes place) is not on a model or within 1" unless assaulting or in the Assault Phase. Of course that just opens up the argument that Deep Strike is part of the Deployment Phase (of which I still can't find in the BrB).

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

You're welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Natfka wrote:
The rules dont say this anywhere under deepstriking. You are allowed to place your marker model anywhere on the battlefield. However you are stupid if you have normal deep striking units and place them on top of something. Actual rule wording for deep striking is "place units ANYWHERE on the table"

The disagreement is what the table is actually defined as. Many people argue that the table includes anything that is also in contact with the physical table (e.g., terrain and other models). Some of us contend that opponents' models are not a part of the table as they shift and move whereas everything else is static. A model may be removed from the table; however a piece of terrain or the table leg is an immovable and permanent fixture. To me, "the table" means just that. If it moves or is able to move, it's not a part of the table and therefor can not be defined as "the table".

So yes, you may place your model anywhere on the table but the point of contention remains in what exactly "the table" is.

My table is composed of 12 movable terrain squares. I guess no deepstriking on my table because the terrain features move.

God these arguments are so asinine.

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Yea well that is Apwill's m.o. He throws out the TFG tag on anyone that disagrees with him like Gwar throws out the "you're cheating" to anyone that doesn't agree with his RAW opinion.

Brother Ramses wrote:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Yea well that is Apwill's m.o. He throws out the TFG tag on anyone that disagrees with him like Gwar throws out the "you're cheating" to anyone that doesn't agree with his RAW opinion.

I call's 'em as I see's 'em

Meh - Brother Ramses earned my first ignore.

Tactica - while I appreciate that you have conveyed your opinion in a reasonable manner, I do believe that you are deliberately trying to use the rules to corrupt the intention behind the model. If you have doubts as to what the designers intention was with the Mawloc, re-read the entire entry (including the 'fluff'), and the RAI becomes evident. That doesn't change the RAW aspect of the rules, but to say that it wasn't what was intended is being very obstinent.

apwill4765 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Yea well that is Apwill's m.o. He throws out the TFG tag on anyone that disagrees with him like Gwar throws out the "you're cheating" to anyone that doesn't agree with his RAW opinion.

I call's 'em as I see's 'em

Hahaha, yea I know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niceas wrote:Meh - Brother Ramses earned my first ignore.

Tactica - while I appreciate that you have conveyed your opinion in a reasonable manner, I do believe that you are deliberately trying to use the rules to corrupt the intention behind the model. If you have doubts as to what the designers intention was with the Mawloc, re-read the entire entry (including the 'fluff'), and the RAI becomes evident. That doesn't change the RAW aspect of the rules, but to say that it wasn't what was intended is being very obstinent.

Thanks for the ignore, I will take it as a badge of honor.

However, to call Tactica obstinate when his opinion of RAW does not try and skew the chances of increased mishaps to trigger Terror of the Deep while your opinion chooses to increase them through clever manipulation and interpretation of the rules is amusing if not outright ironic.

As has been pointed out several times by what would be "our" camp, we are not denying you that Terror of the Deep occur, just that it occur along the same lines as deep strike mishaps have always occurred. Your camp's argument based on points cost, model cost, perceived fluff, and perceived useful stats along with the desire to increase deep strike mishaps beyond the game mechanics to trigger more Terror of the Deep results seems much more obstinate and downright dishonest.

yakface wrote:1) Q: Does the initial Deep Striking model in a unit have to be placed on the tabletop?

A: In our opinion, no. The term 'on the table' here refers to anywhere within the playing area (typically a 4'x6' area) rather than a model being physically on the table. This is why we have ruled that you are allowed to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit. Of course only a few units actually WANT to do this, and that's why we've ruled in those particular codex areas rather than try to make a general Deep Strike clarification.


2) Q: Is Deep Strike movement?

A: Yes, we consider the act of arriving via Deep Strike as movement, which is exactly why models who are Deep Striking can't be placed within 1" of enemy models.


3) Q: If Deep Striking is movement, how can the initial model be placed within 1" of an enemy model?
A: Yes, once the unit arrives via Deep Strike it is considered to have made a special movement to that point, but in our opinions the actual matter of determining where the unit will arrive (placing the initial model and rolling for scatter) is *not* considered movement...this is simply determining where the unit will actually arrive.

This concept is backed up by how we've seen most people play...there are some who believe that the initial placed model fully counts as being on the table with the scatter being some sort of bizzaro movement itself, but most everyone we've ever played against recognizes that placing the model and scattering them is an abstract idea, which is why that initial model is able to scatter fully over an enemy unit if the roll is high enough to put him on the other side of it.


4) Q: If you can Deep Strike directly over enemy units how do you put the initial model down?
A: In our opinion this is covered by the 'wobbly model' rule...if you're concerned about paint jobs (as you should be), mark the spot with your finger, a die, etc until the final Deep Strike point is determined.



So hopefully that clears things up a bit as to the reasoning behind the rulings...and I'll see if I can't add a general Deep Strike clarification to the next update that will satisfy you a bit more without going too crazy into the realm of confusing people.

Thanks for taking the time to address this. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that placing your initial model on enemy models is allowed.

The reason I disagree is simple: All models are impassible terrain, and impassible terrain rules specify that models may not be placed in impassible terrain. Using the same word, Deep Strike tells you to place models anywhere on the board. If you place a model in impassible terrain for its initial deepstrike position, then you are breaking the impassible terrain rule

I'm curious how the council reconciles this incongruity, which you did not address in your explanation.

Dracos wrote:
The reason I disagree is simple: All models are impassible terrain, and impassible terrain rules specify that models may not be placed in impassible terrain. Using the same word, Deep Strike tells you to place models anywhere on the board. If you place a model in impassible terrain for its initial deepstrike position, then you are breaking the impassible terrain rule

I'm curious how the council reconciles this incongruity, which you did not address in your explanation.

I believe this one is pretty easy to address. Yakface, please correct me if I incorrectly follow your reasoning.

Firstly, the rules do not prevent "placement" of models on impassable terrain. The rules say you cannot "move" into or through impassable terrain.

The INAT.FAQ council is of the opinion that the initial "placement" of the model from which the scatter role is determined does not constitute "movement." In their interpretation, "movement" does not occur until after the scatter die is rolled and final placement of the deep striking unit is determined. If, after determining final placement, the model/unit is then in impassable terrain, then you follow the rules for that.

This is actually addressed in Yak's point number "3" in the section you quoted.

No, the rule states a model may not be PLACED in impassable terrain.

Like I said, it is just a clever manipulation of the rules even pointed out in the explanation:

Yak wrote:.....but in our opinions the actual matter of determining where the unit will arrive (placing the initial model and rolling for scatter) is *not* considered movement...this is simply determining where the unit will actually arrive.

So while they consider deep strike movement for all intents and purposes, the actual placement is not.

As if there is a break in the entire process that they have labeled as movement to which they insert non-movement.

Like pre-meditated murder is murder, but a lawyer states that the actual pulling of the trigger of the gun that murders the person is not murder. The end result is still murder, but the pulling of the trigger that fires the bullet that commits the murder is not. Okie dokie!

So their opinion is that the actual placement is not movement and therefore not subject to the on-top or within 1" rule yet the result ends up breaking the rule nonetheless. Hence the fact that they have ruled deep strike movement for all intents and purposes is moot.

Klawz wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?

Does his phrasing matter? He meant that, when you roll the 2D6+scatter, that doesn't make you mishap. It's only when you hit an enemy model/impassable terrain do you mishap.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I blame not having enough coffee late in the work day when I posted that.

Deep Striking is a confusing set of rules when you look at them and try to break them down. The first step calls for you to place a model anywhere on the table that you would like the unit to arrive. It doesn't specify that the location of the model must adhere to the standard movement rules, in fact the 'anywhere on the table, position you would like the unit to arrive' (RB 95) would seem to give you free reign to place it wherever you want.

To further add to the confusion the rules do not specify when you check for Deep Strike Mishaps. What is the difference between 'models in a deep striking unit being deployed' and placing the first model in the first step? Do you check as soon as you place the first model on the table where you would like it to arrive? Do you check after you roll the scatter? Do you check both times?

Burger Rage wrote:

Klawz wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?

Does his phrasing matter? He meant that, when you roll the 2D6+scatter, that doesn't make you mishap. It's only when you hit an enemy model/impassable terrain do you mishap.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I blame not having enough coffee late in the work day when I posted that.

Deep Striking is a confusing set of rules when you look at them and try to break them down. The first step calls for you to place a model anywhere on the table that you would like the unit to arrive. It doesn't specify that the location of the model must adhere to the standard movement rules, in fact the 'anywhere on the table, position you would like the unit to arrive' (RB 95) would seem to give you free reign to place it wherever you want.

To further add to the confusion the rules do not specify when you check for Deep Strike Mishaps. What is the difference between 'models in a deep striking unit being deployed' and placing the first model in the first step? Do you check as soon as you place the first model on the table where you would like it to arrive? Do you check after you roll the scatter? Do you check both times?

If you follow the path for Deep Striking rules it takes you from Deep Strike ---> Reserves ---> Movement Phase. The INAT followed that same path to determine why Deep Strike is movement and is therefore follows the rules for the Movement Phase. IMO they broke down that the actual placement is not movement despite is still happening during the Movement Phase.

One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Brother Ramses wrote:One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Except that, as noted previously, if you follow that interpretation then you cannot scatter across/past an enemy unit, as you will be "moving" through/too near a unit during the "place a model/scatter/deploy the unit" steps.

Do you mishap every time the line of your scatter roll passes within 1" of an enemy unit? If it's all movement, then you should.

apwill4765 wrote:

My table is composed of 12 movable terrain squares. I guess no deepstriking on my table because the terrain features move.

God these arguments are so asinine.

Yes, they are when you are intentionally being obtuse. To my knowledge there is no in-game effect that moves terrain, are you going to tell me that the mawloc moves buildings, trees and hills as well as tanks and troops? When you are playing a game, you don't move the terrain around thus, for all intents and purposes, terrain is a part of the table.

Lighten up, it's only a game. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine but there is no call to denigrate the thoughts of others simply because you believe they are wrong. It's a big world out there full of diverse people with different ways of thinking. A mature individual respects the opinions of others even when they do not agree.

Janthkin wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Except that, as noted previously, if you follow that interpretation then you cannot scatter across/past an enemy unit, as you will be "moving" through/too near a unit during the "place a model/scatter/deploy the unit" steps.

Do you mishap every time the line of your scatter roll passes within 1" of an enemy unit? If it's all movement, then you should.

I have the counter for this argument, but it is dependent on the wording the BrB that I do not have at my office right now. Will save for when I get home Janth.

Saldiven wrote:

Dracos wrote:
The reason I disagree is simple: All models are impassible terrain, and impassible terrain rules specify that models may not be placed in impassible terrain. Using the same word, Deep Strike tells you to place models anywhere on the board. If you place a model in impassible terrain for its initial deepstrike position, then you are breaking the impassible terrain rule <snip>

<snip> ...Firstly, the rules do not prevent "placement" of models on impassable terrain. The rules say you cannot "move" into or through impassable terrain.

The INAT.FAQ council is of the opinion that the initial "placement" of the model from which the scatter role is determined does not constitute "movement." In their interpretation, "movement" does not occur until after the scatter die is rolled and final placement of the deep striking unit is determined. If, after determining final placement, the model/unit is then in impassable terrain, then you follow the rules for that.

Due to your wording, I do not know if this answers your question... but if it helps one way or the other...

From INAT FAQ 3.2, page 18, left column, section: ORGANIZING A BATTLE: DEPLOY FORCES (PAGES 92-93)

RB.92A.02 – Q: When deploying forces, can units be deployed into impassable terrain?
A: A unit may only be deployed into impassable terrain if it has a special rule allowing it to do so (like a Lictor) or it would be allowed to move there during the game (such as a skimmer on top of an impassable building) [clarification].

Cheers,

Tac

The impassible terrain rules explicitly prohibit placing models in impassible terrain, using the word "place".

Similarly, Deep Strike uses the word "place" to describe how you put the initial model down.

This is the incongruity which was notably absent from Yak's rational, and I was wanting to make sure this fact had been considered when making the judgment. If it was considered, then how has this incongruity been reconciled?

edit: As much as I appreciate everyone's opinion, I am putting my question to Yak, as only he knows to what extend this was considered.

I need a clarification on a facet of the Mawloc issue;

A lot of people state that any unit embarked in a vehicle destroyed by Terror From The Deep, is also destroyed.

Is there a ruling concerning this. I can't seem to find a rule addressing this issue.

Can anybody help me out?

Steelmage99 wrote:I need a clarification on a facet of the Mawloc issue;

A lot of people state that any unit embarked in a vehicle destroyed by Terror From The Deep, is also destroyed.

Is there a ruling concerning this. I can't seem to find a rule addressing this issue.

Can anybody help me out?

I can see how that would be a possible outcome:

Mawloc destroys the vehicle. You would have to deploy your troops so that they fit within the crater that was once the vehicle. Mawloc's base could be dead center in the middle of said crater. You would not be able to deploy your troops over an inch away from Mawloc's base, they are destroyed.

That is true.

I like this thread but I really hate this game.

The first step to recovery is to admit that you are broken. In this case we need to admit to ourselves that the mawloc breaks the RAW, in many ways. I persoanlly, don't like it, but it is par for the GW course.

Now, how do we fix it? I definitely do not like or agree with Yak and the mighty council of elders' rulings. but as Yak said, these are not rules, but a rubric for judges to use in one particular tournament. A member of my gaming group has suggested that we all sign up to play by the INAT FAQ. To which I answer 'hell no.' However, I tell them that I'll let you interpret your codex however you want and we'll just play a friendly game.

There is a lot of good heated debate and a good amount of fun flaming here, but the reality is that GW broke this beast, so blame them. What you don't realize is that sales of the Mawloc and Trygon are through the roof. Why? because you all bought them in the quest to be the biggest and baddest player out there. You, in fact, played right into the hands of GW marketing. The same marketing that breaks rules, breaks the game, but makes you run out and by three mawlocs.

Every codex starts with the implicit phrase 'Congratulations, you are now owner to the baddest army in the galaxy'

This will not stop until the player base lets GW know that we want it fixed, not with letters and emails, but with dollars. Oh, you'll see an official GW FAQ soon, but it will be after the new model sales level off.

Anyway, back to the fray! I am enjoying it.

I say to hell with the Mawloc, when the Necron's get their next codex I demand an uber-squishing from above rule which dealing at least Str.6 ap 2 wounds also. Or maybe it should just do a strn10 power hit to everything underneath it...

maybe they can take an initiative test to see if they can run, lol

Anways you guys know I'm playing I will say this though, if this intentional mishap can happen don't be surprised if people fling DSing units on others hoping to bump them back up into reserves. Sure, 2 out of 3 times it's pants, but if I've learned one thing about 40K it's that there's always some crazy bastard pulling off the improbable.

Can I get a hear hear?

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote: A member of my gaming group has suggested that we all sign up to play by the INAT FAQ. To which I answer 'hell no.' However, I tell them that I'll let you interpret your codex however you want and we'll just play a friendly game.

I'm the opposite. I like the INAT FAQ simply because it represents a neutral arbiter for a lot of questions. To me the worst time to try to argue a rule is in the middle of a game when the outcome can hinge on the result of the argument and the players have a vested interest in winning the argument. Agree beforehand to use INAT and it just saves a headache and lets the game go on. The individual rulings are less important than what the whole represents.

What you don't realize is that sales of the Mawloc and Trygon are through the roof.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you are just pulling random "facts" out of your ass?

Why? because you all bought them in the quest to be the biggest and baddest player out there.

And again. Man, you're good.

Yeah, we use the INAT in our group, course, we attend lots of tourneys where it's used (two teams to Adepticon, etc) as well, so it helps to be familiar with it.

That said, I don't agree with every call they make. Heck, don't agree with this one. Yes, GW did say that Spores can land on units. But that's the ONLY unit that GW has said that about.............. Given that as the only GW exception thus far, I would say that they are the only exception to the rule and nothing else can land (be placed for deep strike) on top of an enemy unit until/unless GW says it can. Maybe I'm wrong, dunno, we'll see if GW ever bothers to answer this in their FAQ.

Hear hear, go out and roll those dice.

I find that the rules for this are not broken in any way or that the wording is all that cryptic.

The real problem here (my opinion only) is that the wrong rule is being modified. The Mawloc comes with the USR Deep Strike, then it gives the special rule "Terror from the Deep" which instructs the player in what to do if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model.

It seems to me that some would modify the rules for Deep Strike based on the special rule Terror from the deep, which in no way tells the player how to modify the Deep Strike USR play mechanic. If the intention (once again my opinion) was to modify the Deep Strike USR I would think they would say something about it in the rules for Terror from the Deep.

Just an observation, and it's all really relative.

herosson wrote:Hear hear, go out and roll those dice.

I find that the rules for this are not broken in any way or that the wording is all that cryptic.

The real problem here (my opinion only) is that the wrong rule is being modified. The Mawloc comes with the USR Deep Strike, then it gives the special rule "Terror from the Deep" which instructs the player in what to do if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model.

It seems to me that some would modify the rules for Deep Strike based on the special rule Terror from the deep, which in no way tells the player how to modify the Deep Strike USR play mechanic. If the intention (once again my opinion) was to modify the Deep Strike USR I would think they would say something about it in the rules for Terror from the Deep.

Just an observation, and it's all really relitive.

Nice point to make.

The jist of it all is that a segment of the playerbase saw what Terror of the Deep did and then tried to find a way in the rules to increase the chance of it happening. Sort of a reverse engineering to justify increased chances of Terror of the Deep occurring. I think that is the biggest problem I have with this whole argument is the willingness to scrutinize the rules to skew the odds in their favor of rolling a mishap to trigger Terror of the Deep. I won't say it is outright cheating, but it sure reeks of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Except that, as noted previously, if you follow that interpretation then you cannot scatter across/past an enemy unit, as you will be "moving" through/too near a unit during the "place a model/scatter/deploy the unit" steps.

Do you mishap every time the line of your scatter roll passes within 1" of an enemy unit? If it's all movement, then you should.

Good point Janth.

While the scatter does deploy through or near an enemy model, the Deep Strike rules do not consider them a candidate for Mishap until they are deployed. Now of course this sounds as if you can then do as some want to with the Mawloc during Deep Strike since he is not yet "deployed" so can be placed on or within 1" of a enemy model. However the rule in the placing of models still stands because despite the Mawloc "not really being there just yet" the full intention by the player is to fully break the movement rules for placing models to solely increase the chance to trigger Terror of the Deep.

Despite the method to get there, the end result is that the rules for placing models in the movement phase is broken. The thing that kinda ticks me off is that a segment of the player base is not relying on the normal method of scatter to determine a mishap, but an increased chance to get a mishap.

Brother Ramses wrote:I won't say it is outright cheating, but it sure reeks of it.

Cheating? Really? The drama over this issue would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.

Arschbombe wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:I won't say it is outright cheating, but it sure reeks of it.

Cheating? Really? The drama over this issue would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.

I would say that if you are reading and interpreting the rules to INCREASE the chance of a positive result for your army then yes, I would consider that cheating. Especially when there is RAW evidence and precedent that your interpretation is wrong.

Brother Ramses wrote:I would say that if you are reading and interpreting the rules to INCREASE the chance of a positive result for your army then yes, I would consider that cheating. Especially when there is RAW evidence and precedent that your interpretation is wrong.

Errm... you do realise Precedence actually supports the "may deep strike on top of an enemy unit" as Monoliths and Spore Mines (4th ed) have been doing this for many, many years?

I can't find my old Nid codex around the house right now, but looking at my Necron codex, the Monolith does not make any changes to the deep striking rules that allows it to deep strike onto enemy units, but only changes what happens if it arrives within 1" of an enemy.

It is just a different version of the Mawloc's Terror of the Deep when a mishap occurs.

And by precedence, I am talking about rolling for and getting a mishap via the scatter dice, not via placement of the model before rolling for scatter.

Dracos wrote:The impassible terrain rules explicitly prohibit placing models in impassible terrain, using the word "place".

Similarly, Deep Strike uses the word "place" to describe how you put the initial model down.

This is the incongruity which was notably absent from Yak's rational, and I was wanting to make sure this fact had been considered when making the judgment. If it was considered, then how has this incongruity been reconciled?

edit: As much as I appreciate everyone's opinion, I am putting my question to Yak, as only he knows to what extend this was considered.

The point I was trying to make above (and perhaps I didn't do as good a job as I hoped!) was that we consider the initial 'placement' of the Deep Striking model to be representational. It is a marker used to help figure out where the unit will actually end up Deep Striking. So until the final position of the Deep Striking model is determined, that model isn't bound by ANY rules besides having to be placed anywhere on the table (which we take to mean anywhere within the accepted gaming area).

This is why when the initial model scatters, this 'movement' isn't blocked by impassable terrain, enemy models, etc...the full scatter distance is always observed.

Once the final position is determined, then the Deep Striking models are placed, counting as moving to THAT finalized point. And if that point turns out to be in an unacceptable position (within 1" of an enemy model, in impassable terrain, off the table, etc) then the unit follows the rules for a Deep Strike Mishap.


I personally feel really, really strongly that we ruled this one 'right' in that if GW ever rules on this matter (although I think they may not bother figuring that casual players who read the Mawloc rules will find it abundantly clear that they are allowed to intentionally Deep Strike onto enemy models, as that's the whole point of the model!) I'm confident they will rule exactly the same way.

Of course, I could end up putting a giant foot into my mouth if I turn out to be wrong, but as of right now, this is a ruling that I stand by with confidence.

Oh, you made your point just fine. I just happen to disagree with it. Only one unit has been FAQed by GW as having a legal initial deep strike placement on top of another unit, friend or foe. That, to me, means that is the only unit that is allowed to do so, or they would have mentioned it for the others.

How hard is this? Everyone here who doesn't think that the Mawloc can do this is getting caught up in the model that GW wants you to use as a marker. Yakface is right, no rules govern it as it isn't even in play at this moment, the unit doesn't enter play until after the scatter.

If the model was in play and therefore governed by movement rules would you make the squad take a mishap roll if say the scatter line goes through an enemy unit (but you didn't target any place that is within 1" of an enemy model) and you end up not within 1". Do any of you actually play like that?

How hard is this? Everyone here who does think that the Mawloc can do this ......................................

By what you're saying, every deep striking unit can start it's DS placement over an enemy unit. Yet it took an FAQ just for spore mines to be able to do so. Why? Because you cannot start your deep strike placement over an enemy unit.

So me one actual piece of documentation, not speculation by players, from GW saying explicitly that the Mawloc can start it's deep strike positioning on top of any enemy unit. Doesn't exist, does it? It required an FAQ for Spore Mines (altho I thought that one was a gimme) and to me, it will take a GW FAQ for me to cease to argue against the Mawloc being able to start it's deep strike on an enemy unit.

Well then...
I think for once people should take a deep breath, forget about the rules, and really think what this "Mawloc" thingy is for.

It's not for popping up just in front of a unit is it?
It's for opening a hole under some tasty canned foor and omn omn omn-ing isn't it?

In which case 'trying to miss on purpose' seems pretty silly.

Maybe GW gives some players too much credit =P

It's like people saying well it doesn't say it doesn't work while it's off the board - so it must. While not noticing all the pervious examples where it's stated it work anytime or can be used from reserves etc etc etc.

don_mondo wrote:How hard is this? Everyone here who does think that the Mawloc can do this ......................................

By what you're saying, every deep striking unit can start it's DS placement over an enemy unit. Yet it took an FAQ just for spore mines to be able to do so. Why? Because you cannot start your deep strike placement over an enemy unit.

So me one actual piece of documentation, not speculation by players, from GW saying explicitly that the Mawloc can start it's deep strike positioning on top of any enemy unit. Doesn't exist, does it? It required an FAQ for Spore Mines (altho I thought that one was a gimme) and to me, it will take a GW FAQ for me to cease to argue against the Mawloc being able to start it's deep strike on an enemy unit.

To be fair, just because a question and answer is included in a FAQ doesn't mean it is a rules change, it can just mean the question is frequently asked.

And the reason for that question again goes back to the core question of what it means to be able to place the initial marker 'anywhere on the table'.

If you take that to mean 'on the tabletop' (of course, assuming that terrain counts as part of the tabletop), then you believe that the initial placement can't be over an enemy model. If you take that to mean 'anywhere in the playing area', then you believe that in general it is fine to pick any spot to initiate the Deep Strike process, even if it begins over an enemy model.

So I obviously don't think there is one completely clear answer...but I do think that based on the entirety of the rules/fluff written for the Mawloc that GW sure believes they are able to Deep Strike anywhere they want (even directly into enemy models), although it wouldn't surprise me in the least for GW not to understand why people are even debating this either.

Well, if that is indeed what they mean, then they need to say that..............

Until they do (or say it cannot), well, we'll keep going round and round on a merry-go-round.

So your opinion is that we shouldn't use something in it's intended purpose/role/way because GW doesn't treat everyone as if they need warning lables on knives?

No, my opinion is that we don't know that it is "intended" to work that way, and based on their previous rulings, only one thing works that way (spore mines). Your opinion is otherwise. And for both of us, that's all it is, an opinion. We don't have a firm GW rule one way or the other. So I disagree with the INAT ruling, because in my opinion, nothing except those units that GW has stated as able to start their deep strike position on top of an enemy unit can do so. And they have not stated so for the Mawloc. And until they do so, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
Isn't one of the basic items for figuring out what you can or cannot do something like, "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot"? So tell me, where does it say the Mawloc can............ Simple, it doesn't. Which would be a 'cannot', right? It tells us what happens if the Mawloc scatters onto an enemy unit. From this, people are inferring that it can start on top of an enemy unit to increase it's chance of landing on an enemy unit.

But bottom line, I'll be playing that it can, until GW says otherwise and/or the INAT says otherwise, because altho I disagree, I do use the INAT. But I still reserve my right to state my disagreement.

don_mondo wrote:
But bottom line, I'll be playing that it can, until GW says otherwise and/or the INAT says otherwise, because altho I disagree, I do use the INAT. But I still reserve my right to state my disagreement.

And I wouldn't want it any other way!

Hehehehehe, you know me, never been very bashful, have I?

Well said
Now, a little bit of mathhammer.
Assuming 'best for mishap' unit distibution,
Assuming a Mawlocs base to be 7.5cm-ish,
Now let a squad of say 5 terminators be standing around they'd easily occupy a space of 17cm across the board and 8cm deep - Giving a mishap range of ~20cm, by ~10cm.

Now 1/3rd of the time the 'Loc is going to hit, and not go anywhere (no mishap)

The remaining 2/3rds of the time scatter comes into play.

The Terminators with the mawloc as close as possible have an 'arc' of about 120-135 where it would head towards them.

With the assumption in consideration any #on the scatter distance would cause the mishap.

So (2/3)*(135/360) Gives us a ~25% chance for what the 'Loc player would want - not that bad actually.


Hmm, think We'll spend some of our gaming time tonight doing a couple more examples by hand/proper measument.

don_mondo

You claim we can't know intention doe sthat mean you advocating entirely playing by RAW?

In which case terror from the deep is useless anyway because there is no such thing as a large blast template.

I preseume you ebeilve that the Doom doesn't get a 3++ as it's not a zoanthrope.

Or if you roll equal in the deployment first turn roll off twice that the game just stops as you can't re-roll ANYTHING a 2nd time?

That ramming is impossible becauise Tank shocking stops you from coming with 1" of another vehicle but the ramming rules do not override this (they just state what happens should you contact another vehicle which of course you never will).

That Yriels spear does nothing (it follwos the singing spear rules on pg 18 of the codex of which of course there are none, as they are on page 27).

That every weapon destroyed result on the Monolith increases it's shoots by 1?

Sometimes intention is abundantly clear. GWs here are obvious and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother FAQing this as it is so obvious. Given that the INAT FAQ panel has deliberately ignored RAW and RAI to knobble the entire Tyranid codex by screwing the DS army selection (the only real army wide tactical addition in this codex) and even they (who clearly think 'Nids are OP and have hence nuetured the entire army) have ruled this way should probably tell you something...

Don't misquote me. I said that we don't know that this is intended to work that way. Never said anything about any other issue. Sometines intent is clear. On this one, I don't think it is. You may think otherwise. See my earlier posts above regarding opinions................

Enjoy. Time for me to go home and get some sleep.

PistolWraithCaine wrote:How hard is this?

Appearently it's a pretty significant issue. Across every major forum I have visited, this same issue has arose, heavily debated and the verdict is still out. The difference here is how you wish to perceive the DEEP STRIKE rules were intended. Across these many forums, the majority seems to believe that the Mawloc uses the normal Deep Strike rules and has a speciall burrowing and mishap result. I would dare say this is undisputed by the reasonable consensus.

Everyone here who doesn't think that the Mawloc can do this is getting caught up in the model that GW wants you to use as a marker.

That is incorrect.

There are several considerations to take into account from a rules interpretation perspective.

There are those of us that believe Deep Strike happens in the Movement Phase and as a result is movement. There are those of us that believe placing a marker with one of your models in your unit is the intended point where you wish to move. There are those of us that believe you cannot intentionally move within 1" of the enemy unless you are assaulting or have a special rule.

There are also those of us who believe the counsel failed to rule conservatively or as close to RAW. There are those of us that believe its better to interpret cautiously rather than in favor of a rule which has clear rammifications.

There are those of us that believe Mishaps were meant for accidents. If GW wanted you to Deep Strike blatantly on top of enemy models, they would have said as much. Instead, GW said the model Deep Strikes as normal, but should something go wrong i.e. Mishap, it has special rules.

Yakface is right,

That is your opinion.

For some of us, we believe the INAT FAQ interpretation has it wrong on this issue. We are simply voicing that opposition and opinion for their consideration. I am confident that we have made the point. Furthermore, I believe the case raised has merit.

There are many of us, myself included, that are as strong in our conviction and opinion on this issue as Yakface is of his. I think that is an important fact.

Furthermore, I do not desparage him. I do not demonize him. I do not insult him or otherwise accuse foul play. I do not minimize his opinion or try to pass off that yours or others are simply wrong or ignorant of the obvious.

To the contrary in fact. I value Yakface's opinion and the INAT FAQ counsel's interpretations. I think I have made that clear. I feel confident that many players refer and utilize the INAT FAQ outside of AdeptiCon as a reference tool. Thus, our passion for the hobby and trust we put into the document for just and fair interpretations has brought this issue to their attention. Our goal to effectively communicate a real disagreement with their interpretation is not fueled by malice or ill will, but by a genuine concern that wish proper attention be given to.

no rules govern it as it isn't even in play at this moment, the unit doesn't enter play until after the scatter.

I disagree with your statement. There are rules that definitely do govern it.

- Do Deployment rules govern models that are not in play yet?
- Do Reserves rules govern models that are not in play yet?
- Do Deep Strike rules govern how a model enters play?

- Perhaps the question you are trying to raise is, If Deep Strike occurs in the Movement Phase, but the model has not arrived yet - do movement rules govern it? This is one of the debated points however. Since their are only three phases of the game (move, shoot assault), the turn must start with Movement Phase. Since the Movement Phase does have rules that govern all models that are MOVING or WISH TO MOVE and since you can ONLY move within 1" of the enemy during assault, there are those of us that state yes, concepts like Impassible Terrain, moving within 1" of the enemy, etc all effect Deep Strike movement actions.

Point being, this is hardly a 'simple' topic to many of us.

If the model was in play and therefore governed by movement rules would you make the squad take a mishap roll if say the scatter line goes through an enemy unit (but you didn't target any place that is within 1" of an enemy model) and you end up not within 1". Do any of you actually play like that?

This is a hypothetical *IF* the rules were different and *IF* something happened *what* would you do is.... off topic and unnecessary to debate the current topic in my opinion.

Cheers,

Tac

Arschbombe wrote:

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:

What you don't realize is that sales of the Mawloc and Trygon are through the roof.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you are just pulling random "facts" out of your ass?

Why? because you all bought them in the quest to be the biggest and baddest player out there.

And again. Man, you're good.

I am better then good, I am informed. Facts, whether random or not, are facts.
Unfortunately, you sink to attacking me, rather then the arguments at hand. I understand though, this is after all, dakkadakka




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactica: An absolutely brilliant post that is indeed the matter at hand. You covered my sentiments completely.

all:
This is a big deal, whether you play in tournaments or at your friends house. Is this a game of rules or a game of interpretations. If it is the latter, who is the authority on interpreting?

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:I am better then good, I am informed. Facts, whether random or not, are facts.

You presented no facts. You made assertions.

There are several considerations to take into account from a rules interpretation perspective.

There are those of us that believe Deep Strike happens in the Movement Phase and as a result is movement. There are those of us that believe placing a marker with one of your models in your unit is the intended point where you wish to move. There are those of us that believe you cannot intentionally move within 1" of the enemy unless you are assaulting or have a special rule.

There are also those of us who believe the counsel failed to rule conservatively or as close to RAW. There are those of us that believe its better to interpret cautiously rather than in favor of a rule which has clear rammifications.

There are those of us that believe Mishaps were meant for accidents. If GW wanted you to Deep Strike blatantly on top of enemy models, they would have said as much. Instead, GW said the model Deep Strikes as normal, but should something go wrong i.e. Mishap, it has special rules.

Saved me 5 minutes of typing, thanks.

Howdy all, figured i'd chime in.

This issue needs to be calmed down, based on how hot the debate is. I hope I can offer some insight that helps people see things in the adepticon faq's point of view.

Also consider the Mawloc is so terribad even if you let it get everything its way! 5th ed was not kind to nids, and the 5th ed nid book is not a strong competitive army outside of 1k point games. Its sad there is such negative feelings towards nids. But that is just my opinion, dont dwell on it if you disagree. If GW rules that the mawloc, like the spore mine, can deepstrike on top of enemy units, please dont /quit 40k. The Mawloc the nid version of a medusa gun, but it only fires every other turn and costs more points. Its bad! Again my opinion but most people will agree the Mawloc is no lash of submission!

As an aside before my main point, spore mines were allowed to deepstrike on top of enemy models --to avoid mishapping and going back in reserve/being destroyed/general mishap sillyness that applies when a model deepstrikes within 1 inch of the enemy. It was not to allow a spore model to initially be placed on another model for deepstrike resolution--it was assumed that could be done. But whatever, again thats just my opinion, lets not focus on the old.

When you deepstrike and place the initial model, and roll a hit, people are saying that you can not mishap on a hit, as mishaps are reserved for when things go wrong. Forget about the mawloc for a minute, as the mawloc is not the focus of this argument any more, as the issue is entirely one with deepstriking 'physical world' initial model placement counting as 'game world' model placement.

So, you place your initial model of, lets say, terminators. You play that the initial model (a placeholder, but whatever) can not be placed on impassable terrain (even though its not actually placed yet, but whatever). You roll a hit 1 inch away from an enemy unit. You then start placing termies in a ring. And wow, your ring runs into an enemy unit. Well, you must place your ring(s) around the initial model, which lands a model in impassible terrain. Congrats! You just mishaped on a hit even though your initial (placeholder) model was 1 inch away, by placing a ringed termie model in impassible terrain (another model) and you did it without the initial model being placed in impassable terrain.

So mishaping despite getting a deepstrike hit is not a new thing, no matter how you play in regards to the initial model deepstrike issue.

Now, all that aside. Lets say you are moving an infantry squad. You cant move within 1 inch of the enemy in the movement phase, we know. So, you place a die where the model starts, pick up the model, and begin checking where the model in your hand can go. Does the model in your hand, a 'placeholder' until it is finished moving, cause you to lose the game if your hand passes within 1 inch of the enemy? Technically, you just moved a model within an inch, despite not actually having the model move there. In real life, the physical model was within 1 inch. In the game, the model stayed outside 1 inch the entire time.

There is a barrier between the physical real world, and the game world. Coming back to the mawloc, it is NOT POSSIBLE via the game world to resolve the mawlocs movement (its deepstrike) within 1 inch of an enemy model. This is true if your initial 'physical real world in hand' model is over an enemy model or not, because by the end of the mawloc's movement with terror from the deep it will have moved all impassable models from around it. When you resolve the mawloc's deepstrike move with 'game world' movement, there will NEVER be enemy models within 1 inch regardless of the initial model seeming, in the 'real model in hand world', to be within 1 inch. This is just another abstract between the physical real world and the 'game' world.

Thanks for sticking with the mountain of text!

First off, no matter how craptastic you or any of your camp thinks the Mawloc happens to be in terms of points cost, stat-line, or model cost does not have any standing in justifying an illegal move.

That is like me saying the new Blood Claws suck now and are less better then Grey Hunters, so I should get to assault with my Blood Claws after Deep Striking because if I am within 6", and not being led by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, I need to assault per the Headstrong rule.

The crap doesn't grow wings and fly just because you don't like the smell.

Now for the rest of your drivel, no matter how much again, your camp, wants to differentiate between what is exactly the model, what exactly is placement, and what exactly is movement, YOUR INTENTION TO PLACE A MODEL IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE ON OR WITHIN 1" OF AN ENEMY MODEL IS STILL ILLEGAL.

It doesn't matter how you try and justify it or how you can interpret the rules to let you "placehold" on or within 1" of an enemy model, your clear final intention is to end up with the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model.

It doesn't matter the method, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE END RESULT!

/geesh

I can't believe I'm actually going to post in this thread, but here goes...

The whole problem that I have with the "you can't Deep Strike on or within 1" of a model" camps argument is the Mycetic Spore rules.

In the Mycetic Spore rules, (paraphrasing) it states that if you scatter onto an enemy unit, reduce the scatter by the minimum amount to place it without mishap. So, if you couldn't Deep Strike on top of enemy models, why include the "scatter" caveat? It seems to me the rule would have been written, if you would Deep Strike onto an enemy unit, blah blah blah.

Similarly, if they wanted the Mawloc to function the same way, they would have just copy/pasted the rules (they did for the Trygon). The distinct difference in the language shows that Deep Strking onto enemy units is indeed possible and allowed by the rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:First off, no matter how craptastic you or any of your camp thinks the Mawloc happens to be in terms of points cost, stat-line, or model cost does not have any standing in justifying an illegal move.

That is like me saying the new Blood Claws suck now and are less better then Grey Hunters, so I should get to assault with my Blood Claws after Deep Striking because if I am within 6", and not being led by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, I need to assault per the Headstrong rule.

The crap doesn't grow wings and fly just because you don't like the smell.

Now for the rest of your drivel, no matter how much again, your camp, wants to differentiate between what is exactly the model, what exactly is placement, and what exactly is movement, YOUR INTENTION TO PLACE A MODEL IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE ON OR WITHIN 1" OF AN ENEMY MODEL IS STILL ILLEGAL.

It doesn't matter how you try and justify it or how you can interpret the rules to let you "placehold" on or within 1" of an enemy model, your clear final intention is to end up with the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model.

It doesn't matter the method, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE END RESULT!

/geesh

Please, no matter how you feel the rules for a model in a wargame should be played, there is no reason to become rude and start calling someone else's post 'drivel' any more then you'd like them to say the same to you.


And if I can be so bold as to try to clarify a bit of what 'DevianID' was saying in the first part of his post, he wasn't saying that because the Mawloc is under-powered that therefore we ruled the way we did, but rather even if you do end up playing the game the way we've suggested in the INAT it may turn out that the Mawloc isn't quite as horrible a unit as some imagine it to be.


But I digress, I wanted to re-focus on a point I made earlier that hasn't really been addressed sufficiently IMHO.

So for anyone who believes that players are not allowed to place the initial Deep Striking model in a unit over an enemy model, please chime in and respond to my point here if you don't mind.


The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.


1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.


2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.


Now, I've never personally encountered anyone who plays the style I describe as #2. If there are players who play that way, I'm really curious to here about it (perhaps I should start a poll).

But my guess is, while there may be quite a few people who play that you can't place the initial Deep Striking model over an enemy model, you don't follow the second part of what I propose for some reason.

And IMHO, that is the issue I have. If you're going to insist that the initial model placement counts as putting the model on the table in the way that it must follow all the normal rules for movement, then you really should be consistent and stop scatter when it causes the model to move into an illegal position.


So, if you believe that the initial model can't be placed over an enemy model do you play completely the way I describe in #2, and if not, by what justification?

Brother Ramses way to troll, miss the point, and be TFG.

"YOUR INTENTION TO PLACE A MODEL IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE ON OR WITHIN 1" OF AN ENEMY MODEL IS STILL ILLEGAL...your clear final intention is to end up with the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model. "

My point is that there is no way you can INTENTIONALLY resolve a deepstrike from a mawloc on top of an enemy model. It will never, EVER happen, TFtD moves any models away from you. The Mawloc will NEVER EVER be on top of an enemy model when it is placed on the table, regardless of intentions.

What you are arguing is flawed. You are arguing that before the move is made, the Mawloc cant move. Your argument resides on the idea that while the Mawloc is in hand, resolving its move, the model is considered 'live.'

In my book, when someone calls for a strict interpretation of RAW, that is not 100% supported, AND has numerous counter examples against it, to the specific detriment of a player, they are being TFG.

Examples also include telling a 'nid player that the Doom does not get a 3++ invuln as, while described as a zoanthrope, the Doom is not a Zoanthrope. Doing so in an academic debate is one thing, berating another player however is another, all together different matter.

zatchmo wrote:... In the Mycetic Spore rules, (paraphrasing) it states that if you scatter onto an enemy unit, reduce the scatter by the minimum amount to place it without mishap. So, if you couldn't Deep Strike on top of enemy models, why include the "scatter" caveat? It seems to me the rule would have been written, if you would Deep Strike onto an enemy unit, blah blah blah ...

because if they would've just written "if you DS onto an enemy unit" it would bring up a debate whether you suddenly can DS on an enemy unit. by adding "scatter" they made sure that the only way you can end on an enemy model via DS is scattering there. of course that's just a wild guess, like with a lot of other things GW wrote in their rules that need decrypting.

Nitewolf wrote:

zatchmo wrote:... In the Mycetic Spore rules, (paraphrasing) it states that if you scatter onto an enemy unit, reduce the scatter by the minimum amount to place it without mishap. So, if you couldn't Deep Strike on top of enemy models, why include the "scatter" caveat? It seems to me the rule would have been written, if you would Deep Strike onto an enemy unit, blah blah blah ...

because if they would've just written "if you DS onto an enemy unit" it would bring up a debate whether you suddenly can DS on an enemy unit. by adding "scatter" they made sure that the only way you can end on an enemy model via DS is scattering there. of course that's just a wild guess, like with a lot of other things GW wrote in their rules that need decrypting.

But, that's exactly what the mawloc rule says...if you would DS into an enemy model.

Okay just to slake my interest in the topic, I've created a poll to get a gauge on how people play this issue in general...not even going specifically into the whole issue with the Mawloc (as this really is a bigger disagreement that extends to several models including Monoliths, Spore Mines, Mawlocs, Hades Drills, etc):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278910.page

yakface wrote:
The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.


1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.


2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.

This is the crux of it for me. Either the initial placement of the model is movement, or it isn't. but if it is, then the scatter is clearly moving a model on the table and is subject to those same rules.

I haven't been playing nearly as long as many here, and only play casually with friends, not at tournaments, but it was always my belief from reading the rulebook that the initial model placement for deep strike was just a place-holder, and could be put anywhere, including impassable terrain - it was just that this would usually be a stupid thing to do (but might occasionally be beneficial; if you REALLY don't want that model coming in yet, you might want to risk the mishap so you could hope to get it put back in reserves).

I never saw the rules as preventing this so much as common sense stopping people from doing it, like how you can shoot plasma guns at something clearly out of range just to try to "gets hot" your own guys to death. So at least in my case, and I suspect for some of the others here, we don't think the mawloc is changing deep strike at all, just making a usually bad option into a good one.

Personally, I can see both sides of this argument. Additionally, I can also see how both sides are attempting to read more into the rulebook than is actually present in order to ruleslawyer their interpretation into canon.

We won't know what GW's intention was until they release their own FAQ for the new nid codex, to make any assumptions at the current time is purely conjecture.

For what it's worth, it's my personal opinion that the fluff behind the Mawloc supports the ability to deepstrike on top of enemy units; however, it's also my opinion that deff rollas can be used against vehicles during a ram.

don_mondo wrote:

Yet it took an FAQ just for spore mines to be able to do so. Why? Because you cannot start your deep strike placement over an enemy unit

because in my opinion, nothing except those units that GW has stated as able to start their deep strike position on top of an enemy unit can do so. And they have not stated so for the Mawloc.

Hey Don Mondo,

I can't find my copy of the last Nid FAQ, so I apologize if I remember this wrong.

But as I recall, the FAQ did not give permission for the mine to deepstrike onto enemy units. It did, however, answer a question in a way that only made sense/worked, if the mine was able to do so. The answer indicated that it was okay to DS onto an enemy, not give the Mine special dispensation to do so.

Isn't one of the basic items for figuring out what you can or cannot do something like, "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot"? So tell me, where does it say the Mawloc can............ Simple, it doesn't.

Sure it does. It says place it on the table. It doesn't specifically say it can be placed on enemy models, but it also doesn't say it can be place on a hill, or a forest, etc.

It tells us what happens if the Mawloc scatters onto an enemy unit.

But that is *not* what it says. It never even mentions the term 'scatter' anywhere in the rules. it states "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model...." I realize this causes pages of discussion, but it seems pretty clear from my reading of it.

The fluff also talks of single marines killing hundreds of orks. I use that as an argument to support my "Marines win on a 2+ with ones always re-rolled" rule. I am not sure why, but so far no one in my group will agree with me.. they probably don't read the fluff

Marcus that comment is not logically valid. Marines have no rule whose intention is in question that leads to the idea that marines win on a 2+ with a reroll via corroborating fluff. Your example does not fit the situation, and I daresay you might have missed the point of Waaghmaster posting clearly what he describes as his opinion on how he chooses to interpret the rules, and how his opinion is carried on to other units whose rules have been questionable.

The Mawloc does have rules whose intentions seem suspect as to whether they can or can not deepstrike on top of enemy models, depending on how you play deepstrike as illustrated by Yakface. Fluff supports them deepstriking right on top of others. Legacy 'nid unit rules also support this. Most people also play via Yakface's initial rule interpretation, despite not understanding the consequences of doing so in relation to the Mawloc.

As an aside, Mishaps happen if you CANT deploy ALL the models in a unit without being on top of or too close to an enemy. A mishap prevents the ingame movement of said unit--if a unit is found unable to be placed legally per a deepstrike, it is NOT moved and placed, and instead a mishap is rolled. The deepstrike action itself must, therefore, allow for a unit to be supposed to be on top of another, or we could not mishap in the first place.

Please see my example about a unit deepstriking above. A unit can intentionally place the initial (placeholder) marker legally, 1 inch away from the enemy, roll a hit on the scatter dice, and then automatically mishap while forming rings with the deepstriking unit. This is just more evidence that only after you have resolved the deepstrike scatter do the deepstriking models count as moving and check if they would be placed in impassable terrain. This all supports Yakface's position via the recent poll.

Devian pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as my earlier comments were concerned.
Trying to attribute "intent" to the devs at this point is a crap shoot at best. In relation to the Mawloc, until we get an faq from GW, just discuss with your opponent and decide beforehand. If you can't agree, roll on it and let fate decide. It's a game, it's not the end of the world if it doesn't go in your favor.

I realize that not everyone plays the game for the same reason, and one person's definition of fun won't work for everyone else. Having said that, I enjoy games with an "exciting" scenematic feel, and giant worms (ala Dune) erupting out of the ground and swallowing my boyz whole while other boyz cackle maniacally while crushing 'umies and der wagons beneath their deff rollas fits the bill

Just seems to me that people are getting too caught up in proving they are correct, and are losing sight of the fact that people play this game to have fun, not argue. Like I told one of my co-worker's one time...I could win more arguments with the wife if I really wanted to..but doing so would lead to less play time

Sorry about that Dev, just sick and tired of this one and can't wait for the GW FAQ/Errata no matter which way it goes down.

As I pointed out, no matter how terribad Mawloc may be either using your interpretation or mine, has no bearing on the argument. You are not the first to point out that because it might be such a craptastic model/unit, that it must have this rule your way. GW's point cost/usefullness ratio is unknown to all of us, but whatever it may be or what you and others think it should be, cannot not affect how the rules are read or interpreted.

Now, on to your example:

You can't compare your fictional unit and the Mawloc. If the Mawloc is placed 1" away from a unit and scores a hit, he will never cause a mishap and trigger a Terror of the Deep.

Any player that is going to drop a full 10/15/20man unit within 1" of an enemy unit, knows they are going to mishap (unless a complete moron) due to the having to place his models around his initial model and knowing the size of his unit and base size. Is this fictional player intentionally trying to mishap for some insane reason? Yes, but NOT by initially placing the model on or within 1" of an enemy unit AND he is leaving the chance of a mishap up to the roll of the established game mechanic of the scatter dice.

You mentioned that some people say that a mishap is a sense of something going wrong and then point out an example of how a hit can result in a mishap. I agree with the concept that a mishap is result of something going wrong, however in your example it isn't the hit roll that results in a mishap, it is the players initial placement that resulted in a mishap. There is no difference between player inexperience/stupidity and fluff (as determined by scatter roll) mishaps.

The large blast template used to represent Mawloc and his Terror from the Deep attack do not move models out of the way, it attacks them with a str6 ap2 attack. Are you contending that the attack is not in fact Mawloc and therefore two separate entities following different rules for placement? I didn't quite understand that statement.

Now just something else I kinda have thought, but not too deep. If, as some of you contend, Mawloc by design is intended to be a Terror of the Deep one trick pony, why does the rule even bring into account mishaps?

Why say, "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model..."? If indeed a one trick pony, the rule would just say, "When a Mawloc Deep Strikes....", right?

I haven't crunched the mathammer, but would not this signify that the existing game mechanics of the scatter dice is sufficient to determine Terror of the Deep results versus the increased odds of directly placing the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model?

Don't justify the increased odds of a Terror of the Deep trigger based on fluff or what your perceived points/stats value of the Mawloc.

Apology accepted Ramses

Brother Ramses wrote:The large blast template used to represent Mawloc and his Terror from the Deep attack do not move models out of the way

From TftD pg 51 I quote: "Place the large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from... if any unit still has surviving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template... replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."

From the quoted rules, we see that the template does in fact move models out of the way, and then the Mawloc is placed after there is no models under the template.

Might I also point out, if during a deep strike the actual model needs to be physically placed before resolving the deepstrike, then the Mawloc will hit itself with its large blast template, as it will be placed on the board. Instead the TftD rules specifically tell us that we only put the Mawloc down on the table after resolving the Terror from the Deep.

As an aside, did anyone point out that by RAW, regardless of how you play deepstrike, the Mawloc is forced to be within 1 inch of the enemy with terror from the deep? This is because the 100x120 mm base that the Mawloc is supplied with only leaves 3.5 mm on either long end from the base to the edge of the 127 mm large blast template. Models being pushed from under the large template are only moved the minimum to no longer be under the large blast template, aka they will be in base contact with it, and 3.5 mm away from the Mawloc when the large blast template is replaced with the Mawloc. If this was already mentioned in the thread, please ignore.

yakface wrote:
So for anyone who believes that players are not allowed to place the initial Deep Striking model in a unit over an enemy model, please chime in and respond to my point here if you don't mind.


The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.


1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.


2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.


Now, I've never personally encountered anyone who plays the style I describe as #2. If there are players who play that way, I'm really curious to here about it (perhaps I should start a poll).

But my guess is, while there may be quite a few people who play that you can't place the initial Deep Striking model over an enemy model, you don't follow the second part of what I propose for some reason.

And IMHO, that is the issue I have. If you're going to insist that the initial model placement counts as putting the model on the table in the way that it must follow all the normal rules for movement, then you really should be consistent and stop scatter when it causes the model to move into an illegal position.


So, if you believe that the initial model can't be placed over an enemy model do you play completely the way I describe in #2, and if not, by what justification?

So I created a poll thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278910.page), and lo and behold my prediction seems to be holding true!


I am still waiting for those of you who voted 'B' in the poll thread to tell me how you reconcile the large inconsistency I perceive with your interpretation of the rule.

I am absolutely onboard if you want to say that option 'C' in the poll thread is the RAW...in fact, I think it is! But I don't understand how you can claim that the model actually has to count as being placed on the table and then when it comes to scatter (which is called movement) you are fine with this movement taking the model into places that models can't normally move.

How can you have your cake and eat it too? I just don't understand the rationale here so I'm looking for some of you to give me your perspective on this.

Amen Brother Yakface

yakface wrote:
So for anyone who believes that players are not allowed to place the initial Deep Striking model in a unit over an enemy model, please chime in and respond to my point here if you don't mind.

The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.

1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.

2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.

And IMHO, that is the issue I have. If you're going to insist that the initial model placement counts as putting the model on the table in the way that it must follow all the normal rules for movement, then you really should be consistent and stop scatter when it causes the model to move into an illegal position.

So, if you believe that the initial model can't be placed over an enemy model do you play completely the way I describe in #2, and if not, by what justification?

I am still waiting for those of you who voted 'B' in the poll thread to tell me how you reconcile the large inconsistency I perceive with your interpretation of the rule.

This is how I see it:

I read the rules on page 95. They say, "Place the model on the table". I'm certainly willing to believe that terrain on the table is part of the table, but there is no way anyone can convince me that my models are "the table". I don't care about impassable terrain. You want to place your deep strike on impassable terrain? As far as I am concerned, that's part of 'the table', and so you're meeting the rule. I don't care about 1" separation from my models. The rules on page 95 do not indicate that you have to stay 1" away. As long as your model is on the table, I believe you have fulfilled the rules.

Then you roll for scatter. And, you move (lower case) your model away from your initial position. This isn't, in my interpretation, a "Move", as you see described in the Movement Phase rules. It's part of the Deep Strike rules, which happen outside of the Movement Phase. Movement Phase rules don't apply here, the only rules that apply during a Deep Strike are those listed under the Deep Strike entry. They're more specific rules that override the more general.

This is one of the biggest problems, IMO, with GW rule writing, by the way. They don't have a set of general definitions, nor much of a set of general rules. Taking saves, for example, is listed as part of the Shooting Phase, and then in the Assault Phase, it says, "the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for Shooting." (page 39).

There is no general rule saying that you cannot move within 1" of an opponent's model. Instead, this rule is first mentioned as part of the Movement Phase ("A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the assault phase." (Page 11) It's then re-referenced in a handful of places (Tank Shock, for example, on page 68).

I don't see why this is so difficult to wrap your head around. Deep Strike has it's own set of rules, that override any more general rules for the purpose of resolving the Deep Strike. Here's how it works:

Place the model on the table. - Simple English. Hard to misunderstand this one.
Roll the scatter die. - Also simple English.

Move the model as indicated by the scatter die. (The physical act of moving it, not a Movement Phase action) Check to see that this model may exist in the position indicated, as listed under Deep Strike Mishaps. If a Mishap is triggered , stop placing the model, proceed to mishap resolution.

While there are more models in the unit, one by one, place these models in base contact with a model that has already arrived, in circles. For each model placed, check that it is allowed to be there, and if not, stop placing models and go to mishap resolution.

If all the models make it on to the table, your Deep Strike is complete.

For all of the models that have special rules, their rules govern what would happen IF there is a mishap, they don't change any of the preceding operations. So, for example, your Mawloc gets placed on the table, (Within 1" of my models, if you want), and sticks its landing. This triggers a mishap, because the Mawloc isn't allowed to be within 1" of my models - not because of any rule in the Movement Phase, but because of the definition of a Mishap, under the Deep Strike rules, on page 95. That mishap is replaced by the Mawloc's special rule, so we resolve that instead.

This is the only way, IMO, that you can play Deep Strike without blatantly ignoring one of the written rules. Saying "I want to Deep Strike on top of your models" clearly does not meet the rule that says, "place one model from the unit anywhere on the table." There is no way you can read that sentence and believe that you can either put your models on top of your opponent's models, or that you can disregard having to place them there.

Redbeard wrote:

but there is no way anyone can convince me that my models are "the table".

This is where the crux of the arguement comes from imo.

I think anything on the table constitutes as "the table" and you think that models on the table are separate from "the table"

we will have to agree to disagree, and I'm sorry that the INATfaq disagrees with you.

Demogerg wrote:
This is where the crux of the arguement comes from imo.

I think anything on the table constitutes as "the table" and you think that models on the table are separate from "the table"

Here are the reasons why I believe my models are not the table.

1) My models are my property. GW is not going to write a rule that tells one player to put their models on top of another person's models. For GW, the models have always been more important then the rules. They're no more going to say you should put your models on another person's models than they are going to say that, when you get a weapon destroyed result on an opponent's vehicle, you should break the weapon off.

2) Table implies stationary. The terrain is fixed, it does not move during the course of the game. Considering the terrain as part of the table is therefore reasonable. Units are mobile. A Unit can leave the Table (fallback). If models were part of the table, they couldn't also leave the table. It just doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, consider the picture on page vi of the rulebook, describing what you need.

1) An Opponent
2) Battlefield, which consists of a surface and terrain
3) Two Armies

My army is not my opponent.
My army is not my opponent's army.
My army is not the battlefield.

These things are spelled out as different needs. You need a table. You need an army. The army is not part of the table.


Why do you believe that the armies are part of the table? It's one thing to say that you think they should be, but back it up with some logic.

edit:

Nevermind, Redbeard was much more eloquent.

Redbeard wrote:

Demogerg wrote:
This is where the crux of the arguement comes from imo.

I think anything on the table constitutes as "the table" and you think that models on the table are separate from "the table"

Here are the reasons why I believe my models are not the table.

1) My models are my property. GW is not going to write a rule that tells one player to put their models on top of another person's models. For GW, the models have always been more important then the rules. They're no more going to say you should put your models on another person's models than they are going to say that, when you get a weapon destroyed result on an opponent's vehicle, you should break the weapon off.

2) Table implies stationary. The terrain is fixed, it does not move during the course of the game. Considering the terrain as part of the table is therefore reasonable. Units are mobile. A Unit can leave the Table (fallback). If models were part of the table, they couldn't also leave the table. It just doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, consider the picture on page vi of the rulebook, describing what you need.

1) An Opponent
2) Battlefield, which consists of a surface and terrain
3) Two Armies

My army is not my opponent.
My army is not my opponent's army.
My army is not the battlefield.

These things are spelled out as different needs. You need a table. You need an army. The army is not part of the table.


Why do you believe that the armies are part of the table? It's one thing to say that you think they should be, but back it up with some logic.

1) Wobbly Model Syndrome covers this.
2) in this RAW discussion implications based on opinions are not enough, there needs to be explicit writting
Page vi of the rulebook also does not define any of those as "the table" and my opinion is that models on the table are part of the table, this is exactly the same manner as your opinion that they are not. For example, when I fill my car with gasoline I consider that gasoline to be part of my car, the gas is not affixed to the car, it was purchased separate from my car, but like how warhammer is a game that requires certain elements to play, my car requires certain elements to drive.

Also, by RAW we could go on to say that the Rulebook does not specify that you need to play on a "table" and that a "battlefield" that is laid on on the floor would not allow ANY deepstrikers because there is no table to set the models on.

"First place one model anywhere on the table".

No mention of placeholders, just placing the initial model.

Now if your model is on my model, it's not on the table, because my model is considered to be occupying the space on its base. Ergo, if you can't place your model initially, you cannot deep strike in that position.

Of course, if you can fit in the gaps between my models, go ahead.

Demogerg wrote:
1) Wobbly Model Syndrome covers this.

So you believe that they wrote a rule that specifically requires you to put your model on the table, only to allow you to get around that whenever you find it inconvenient by claiming wobbly model? What if it isn't wobby? What if it's the back of a rhino, a perfectly flat space? Are you going to just put your model on top of your opponent's? Wobbly Model condition doesn't account for that. Furthermore, you're depending on the good graces of your opponent in order to invoke "wobbly model", as it requires both player's agreement.

This seems like a lot of convoluted thinking in order to avoid doing what the rules say. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct.

My argument: Rules say place model on table, so place model on table.
Your argument: You can put them on top of my models, but don't actually have to place them there, instead claiming it's wobbly, and hovering your model over where you want to go.

Really now, which is easier to understand?

2) in this RAW discussion implications based on opinions are not enough, there needs to be explicit writting

You haven't provided any. I've quoted page references. And you're trying to run that argument?

Page vi of the rulebook also does not define any of those as "the table"

You're right. GW is notoriously bad at defining explicit terms and sticking to them.

However, page iv does indicate that a table is a separate entity from an army. Under What You Need:

"2) Battlefield. This will consist of a table or some other surface, and some terrain. When you are starting out, a few books will work fine as hills, whilst cereal packets or the like will make perfectly good buildings."

"3) Two Armies. To start with, aim to have roughly even numbers on each side. Working out a fair match-up is covered over the page."

The Battlefield may not be "a table", such as the platonic ideal, but a table may be used as the battlefield. On the other hand, the Armies are described as completely separate requirements. To say that the Armies are part of the table is simply incorrect. The table is not the army. The Army is not part of The Battlefield. They're independent requirements needed to play the game. It's right there, in the rulebook.

Now, if you want to be pedantic and insist that this means that Deep Striking is impossible if you're playing on the floor, that's on you. Personally, I view the table, as referred to on page 95 as simply being a synonym for "The Battlefield", as one of the three requirements needed to play a game - which can be any surface you choose to use, as well as any terrain in use.

Regardless of how you want to play that, it is clear that Armies are not part of tables (which may be battlefields). RAW may, in fact, mean you can't Deep Strike into terrain. But it most certainly means you cannot Deep Strike on someone else's army.

I dont have my book on me here at work so I cannot quote page numbers, I'm sorry that you have to resort to personal attacks to get your point across

Now, if you want to be pedantic

I tried to be as polite as possible, pointing out that everything in my point of view was an Opinion, and that similarly everything in your point of view is also an Opinion, and I feel that at this point there is no reason to continue this discussion.

However, page iv does indicate that a table is a separate entity from an army. Under What You Need:

"2) Battlefield. This will consist of a table or some other surface, and some terrain. When you are starting out, a few books will work fine as hills, whilst cereal packets or the like will make perfectly good buildings."

So, according to the rules you quoted.
The Battlefield is made up of
1) Table
2) Terrain

So, if you insist on being placed only on 'the table', then that seems to invalidate any terrain as an option.

Also, if a unit deepstrikes, and scatters into other models, your assertion means they are now 'off the table'; which opens up all sorts of other issues.

coredump wrote:
So, if you insist on being placed only on 'the table', then that seems to invalidate any terrain as an option.

It does, which is why I tend to think that when they say table in the Deep Strike rules, they mean it as a synonym for the Battlefield, not specifically as a table, which may not even be used if you're playing on the floor.

Also, if a unit deepstrikes, and scatters into other models, your assertion means they are now 'off the table'; which opens up all sorts of other issues.

This doesn't cause any issues at all, because at that point, you're already in a situation that the rules cover. You only have to place the model on the table when you start the Deep Strike procedure. After that, if it scatters into enemy models, that's a condition that's covered by the definition of the mishap.

Strange indeed how one quotes ruloes about placement but when the view changes to the cold hard fact of the rulebook defines a table as otherwise than an army one goes rather silent and it becomes a view.

It may or may not be the case that deep striking is allowed its just that its rather poorly written and does not function to well as a result as per the way its written.

Tables and armies are defined as not the same or is that something that one wishes to now disagree upon having had it pointed out?

I do not ask soemone to pick the table up when I wish the dished removed from it, but I am interested in the answer as on this point.

My position is a simple one. I hate very idea of the mawloc's telefragging nonsense. Seperately, I think GW intended for it to be able to deep strike beneath units.

I suspect the anti-Mawloc-DS argument is fueled primarily by this antipathy. I can't prove it, but I imagine that if the Mawloc just did it's s6 ap2 template and then appeared as close as possible, or in combat, or anything else, folks wouldn't argue this one so heatedly.

The Mawloc is the Tremors beastie. It's obviously supposed to emerge under units and eat them. That's it's primary function. RAI is crystal clear, the Mawloc can jump on units, that's it's description in the fluff, that's it's unit design.

You can even imagine how their GW's testers, insofar as they have/use them, missed this issue. It takes a bit to figure out how to break it. You have to make the leap from surrounding the target on your previous turn (unworkable), to surrounding it with deep striking spods,(unreliable) to surrounding it with appearing Lictors (infallible). GW just missed the combo. Not their first time, though certainly the most brutal.

Not Yak & Co's fault that GW dropped the ball on noticing the Lictor/Mawloc silliness. Fact is, GW put a model in the game that is anti-fun. I wish Adepticon nerfed it, but their stated position is pretty clear about making as few changes to the rules as they can.

Yak, did you mention earlier if a vehicle gets Mawloc'd the guys within suffer damage as though it was wrecked, or exploded, or are they also telefragged? I seem to recall you stating a view on that issue at some point.

Mawloc = Titan killer.
"You see, my Mawloc came under your warhound titan and since you're next to a building and there's a rhino 5" away the titan can't be moved outside of the template which means you just lost your uber-expensive/powerful titan."

agnosto wrote:Mawloc = Titan killer.
"You see, my Mawloc came under your warhound titan and since you're next to a building and there's a rhino 5" away the titan can't be moved outside of the template which means you just lost your uber-expensive/powerful titan."

And in the context of the Gladiator, that's actually ideal.

Redbeard wrote:
This seems like a lot of convoluted thinking in order to avoid doing what the rules say. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually correct.

My argument: Rules say place model on table, so place model on table.
Your argument: You can put them on top of my models, but don't actually have to place them there, instead claiming it's wobbly, and hovering your model over where you want to go.

Really now, which is easier to understand?

Redbeard,


Thanks for taking the time to explain your position, I appreciate it.

The biggest thing I want to personally address is the idea that 'on the table' is a clear term. Yourself you even admitted that you're essentially treating the term 'table' as a pseudonym for 'battlefield' to make the rules as written work, so I hope that we can both agree that the term is indeed unclear and that is what the crux of the issue is all about.

I totally understand and respect the interpretation you have of this term and that's why I'm completely sympathetic towards anyone who thinks it should be played differently than I do. I hope that you too (and others) can also take a step back and accept that the term is unclear and therefore the only thing we can all possibly agree on that there is no definitive way the RAW tell us how to play; instead there are simply differing interpretations.


If you can accept that idea (which I know can be difficult since everyone wants to believe that how they're interpreting the written word is the one and only right way to read it), then just taking a look at the poll thread should hopefully give a little indication to you that perhaps the ruling we made in the INAT is the right way to go, if for no other reason that most of the people polled seem to already play the way we ruled (which is something we always try to aim for whenever possible).



If you can

yakface wrote:
If you can accept that idea (which I know can be difficult since everyone wants to believe that how they're interpreting the written word is the one and only right way to read it), then just taking a look at the poll thread should hopefully give a little indication to you that perhaps the ruling we made in the INAT is the right way to go, if for no other reason that most of the people polled seem to already play the way we ruled (which is something we always try to aim for whenever possible).

I can buy that. It would have been better to ask the question before the ruling, as I'm sure the ruling biased at least some poll respondents. I also think many poll respondents are voting with the idea of how the fluff indicates the mawloc should ideally work, rather than what the rules actually indicate. But, you can't turn back the clock, so I guess that is what we're stuck with.

yakface wrote:Sorry to have disappointed you on this matter...it certainly wasn't my intention to do so!


I understand perfectly the position that you're coming from and my explanation as to why I chose to write the rulings the way I did was because often I've found that the more detailed my answers are the more people tend to get confused by them and/or not understand what is being said. Because there are many gamers out there who aren't aware of all the minutiae surrounding this issue, so if we put out an answer explaining how you're supposed to mark the Deep Strike point with a marker, then roll, etc, a whole lot people would just be like 'what the heck are they talking about here? What are they even clarifying?'

The fact is, the INAT is not a rulebook, it is a document that is supposed to let you know how judges will rule on an issue if you were to come to them during a tournament and ask them the question. And the meat of the issue is: Are you allowed to Deep Strike over an enemy unit? By answering 'yes' to that question 99% of gamers will understand what we're saying and know how to proceed.

If you want to set your initial Deep Striking model on top of your opponent's models (assuming he's okay with that) or whether you want to mark the initial spot with a marker or your finger, etc, that's up to the players. But the point is, you're allowed to do it.


Now, if you're interested in the council's stance regarding the issues behind the ruling, I'm happy to provide those to you here, but I do really believe that these things would only end up cluttering the document and confusing most players if I bothered to put them into the actual FAQ in some way.

It is important to note that all the points I'm explaining below are only our opinions and are sometimes based on things beyond the RAW that we normally consider for the INAT (such as how we believe most players naturally play an issue).


1) Q: Does the initial Deep Striking model in a unit have to be placed on the tabletop?

A: In our opinion, no. The term 'on the table' here refers to anywhere within the playing area (typically a 4'x6' area) rather than a model being physically on the table. This is why we have ruled that you are allowed to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit. Of course only a few units actually WANT to do this, and that's why we've ruled in those particular codex areas rather than try to make a general Deep Strike clarification.


2) Q: Is Deep Strike movement?

A: Yes, we consider the act of arriving via Deep Strike as movement, which is exactly why models who are Deep Striking can't be placed within 1" of enemy models.


3) Q: If Deep Striking is movement, how can the initial model be placed within 1" of an enemy model?
A: Yes, once the unit arrives via Deep Strike it is considered to have made a special movement to that point, but in our opinions the actual matter of determining where the unit will arrive (placing the initial model and rolling for scatter) is *not* considered movement...this is simply determining where the unit will actually arrive.

This concept is backed up by how we've seen most people play...there are some who believe that the initial placed model fully counts as being on the table with the scatter being some sort of bizzaro movement itself, but most everyone we've ever played against recognizes that placing the model and scattering them is an abstract idea, which is why that initial model is able to scatter fully over an enemy unit if the roll is high enough to put him on the other side of it.


4) Q: If you can Deep Strike directly over enemy units how do you put the initial model down?
A: In our opinion this is covered by the 'wobbly model' rule...if you're concerned about paint jobs (as you should be), mark the spot with your finger, a die, etc until the final Deep Strike point is determined.



So hopefully that clears things up a bit as to the reasoning behind the rulings...and I'll see if I can't add a general Deep Strike clarification to the next update that will satisfy you a bit more without going too crazy into the realm of confusing people.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:I haven't read the INAT.FAQ to see if this is addressed, but do you think we could extrapolate this ruling to include the Monolith. For example, if you wanted to push a unit off of or away from an objective by dropping right on top of them?

Yeah, we ruled on the four units (that I can think of) that want to drop on enemy units:

Monoliths, Pylons, Spore Mines (Mycetic Spores) and Mawlocs.



And also I want to point out that the one time GW did rule on this matter (Spore Mines in the last Tyranid codex) they ruled that it indeed was fine to Deep Strike directly onto enemy models.

I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?

BROODFATHER wrote:I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?

Protip: The Lictors ability explicitly states that it only works when he is on the table. Try reading the rules before accusing others of things eh?

BROODFATHER wrote:
I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?

Exactly how do we contradict ourselves with the ruling on Deathleaper? I'm honestly not understanding the point you're trying to make, but I would like to.

Also, if you'd like some further info on our 'Hive Commander' ruling I posted a bit about that in this thread halfway down the page:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/278416.page


But PLEASE do not respond in this thread, as it is for discussion on the Mawloc. If you have other issues regarding the INAT you'd like to discuss, I suggest posting your points in the main INAT thread stickied at the top of the News & Rumors forum.

agnosto wrote:So yes, you may place your model anywhere on the table but the point of contention remains in what exactly "the table" is.

This made me laugh for a long time. Seriously, when stuff like this comes up in a rules-argument, I think I would reconsider what is important in life

I'm glad that even the most hardcore tournament gamers in my country aren't like this. This is a clear RAI case

Illumini wrote:

agnosto wrote:So yes, you may place your model anywhere on the table but the point of contention remains in what exactly "the table" is.

This made me laugh for a long time. Seriously, when stuff like this comes up in a rules-argument, I think I would reconsider what is important in life

I'm glad that even the most hardcore tournament gamers in my country aren't like this. This is a clear RAI case

I can see just about anyone's point but the problem I have with RAI is that it can be used to justify nearly anything. For me, it's much better to base decisions in life, and games, on known quantities not on what I think was intended by some person I've never met. Making game decisions on RAI is a slippery slope, where do you stop? So suddenly we have miasma's affecting units embarked in a sealed vehicle (Devilship are even outright stated to be sealed which is way they do not have fire points) and any other number of things that I think are silly simply because the writers at GW being so poor at their jobs.

There are any number of units in the game that do not operate as they are obviously intended to by fluff or whatever reason we can arrive at. An example of this is the Tau Ethereal, the unit is meant to be a buff to the tau army by compensating for their low leadership; however, in reality he achieves the opposite as he's extremely squishy and easy to kill which results in everything on the field being forced to take a leadership test or flee. Vespid should be fast, agile, ambushers but they just die. For this reason, most Tau players don't utilize either unit type. That's the army I play, I'm sure others have examples from their own armies. The fact is there are numerous units from many armies that just aren't worth the points or money you pay for them, why would the Tyranids be any different.

The reason for these useless units is that GW does not do enough playtesting before releasing rules. It's as if someone thinks an idea is cool and then makes a rough draft of rules for it without actually testing whether or not it will work. I may be a bit cynical in this regard as they, GW, have already proven themselves to be inept in the codex rules writing department so I fall back on the main rules book. In the case of the Mawloc, the codex states that it deep strikes as normally but has a special rule for mishaps involving enemy units; fair enough, I turn to the rules in the deep striking part of the main rules book which states that you have to place a model from the unit on the table. For me a table is a static thing that does not move so I arrive at my definition of a "table" as follows:

table = static
terrain = static
model = not static
model not equal to table

I trust my logic far more than I trust what some person, whom I've never met so don't know how their mind works, may have intended when they wrote the Tyranid codex from a company that admits they could care less about the game and sees themselves as a company that sells miniatures.

That's my reasoning and 2 cents. If I play a Tyranid player until such time as GW comes forward with a ruling, I will discuss the matter with that person and then let fate decide through a dice roll if we can't agree.

Some models are static, for instance drop pods.

Kilkrazy wrote:Some models are static, for instance drop pods.

lolpwnt. Good example Kilkrazy.

models = static sometimes.

Now what. Can we deepstrike onto drop pods and immobile vehicles by your logic, agnosto?

what if I say my mawloc is coming in on the little tiny space in between models. would anyone complain then?

Surely the size of base defines the footprint the model covers in deep strike.

Gwar! wrote:

BROODFATHER wrote:I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?

Protip: The Lictors ability explicitly states that it only works when he is on the table. Try reading the rules before accusing others of things eh?

Was talking about you know the DEATHLEAPER ability OMG its after me. The one if you had bothered to read the FAQ was addressed by the FAQ. Next time you try to get condescending get your facts straight. Because in all honesty you have NOTHING to be condescending about. Reading comprehension for the loss there "friend".

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the size of base defines the footprint the model covers in deep strike.

Does it say that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BROODFATHER wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

BROODFATHER wrote:I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?

Protip: The Lictors ability explicitly states that it only works when he is on the table. Try reading the rules before accusing others of things eh?

Was talking about you know the DEATHLEAPER ability OMG its after me. The one if you had bothered to read the FAQ was addressed by the FAQ. Next time you try to get condescending get your facts straight. Because in all honesty you have NOTHING to be condescending about. Reading comprehension for the loss there "friend".

1. You are back pedaling, as the Hive Commander abillity has a big heap of nothing to do with It's after me.
2. Angry much?
3. You never specified It's After Me when talking about the ability that has nothing to do with It's After Me.
4. "Reading comprehension for the loss" WRONG! You never said you were talking about It's After Me.

Klawz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the size of base defines the footprint the model covers in deep strike.

Does it say that?

If not, how would you tell when a deep struck model had entered some impassable terrain and was liable to roll for a mishap?

Kilkrazy wrote:If not, how would you tell when a deep struck model had entered some impassable terrain and was liable to roll for a mishap?

Roll a 4+

Thank you, I'll be here all week!

Kilkrazy wrote:

Klawz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the size of base defines the footprint the model covers in deep strike.

Does it say that?

If not, how would you tell when a deep struck model had entered some impassable terrain and was liable to roll for a mishap?

Excuse me, I made a mistake. It does show the footprint, but I'm not Dsing onto my opponents models. I'm DSing onto the table, my opponent's models are just in the way. In that case I would mishap, but my Mawloc would instead place the marker.

Me not understand.

Kilkrazy wrote:Me not understand.

The Mawloc has placed himself imbetween the models. Thus he is NOT DSing on top of models. He is DSing on top of the table.

Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
If you can accept that idea (which I know can be difficult since everyone wants to believe that how they're interpreting the written word is the one and only right way to read it), then just taking a look at the poll thread should hopefully give a little indication to you that perhaps the ruling we made in the INAT is the right way to go, if for no other reason that most of the people polled seem to already play the way we ruled (which is something we always try to aim for whenever possible).

I can buy that. It would have been better to ask the question before the ruling, as I'm sure the ruling biased at least some poll respondents. I also think many poll respondents are voting with the idea of how the fluff indicates the mawloc should ideally work, rather than what the rules actually indicate. But, you can't turn back the clock, so I guess that is what we're stuck with.

There's also another bias, in that any Tyranid player is going to read, based on the subject matter. Most nid players will certainly be in favor of the the Mawloc having a better rules interpretation. Other players will be biased by the earlier ruling, and go along with you on it, because you already ruled that way.

As stated before, doing a poll before making the ruling is better data gathering. Doing it now just lets you say "see, I'm right".

Klawz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Me not understand.

The Mawloc has placed himself imbetween the models. Thus he is NOT DSing on top of models. He is DSing on top of the table.

X-X-X-X
-X-X-X-
X-X-X-X

X=model
-=2" space

If the Mawlock can fit into a -, go ahead, but usually it can't. It is not allowed in an X, because those are my models.

mikhaila wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

yakface wrote:
If you can accept that idea (which I know can be difficult since everyone wants to believe that how they're interpreting the written word is the one and only right way to read it), then just taking a look at the poll thread should hopefully give a little indication to you that perhaps the ruling we made in the INAT is the right way to go, if for no other reason that most of the people polled seem to already play the way we ruled (which is something we always try to aim for whenever possible).

I can buy that. It would have been better to ask the question before the ruling, as I'm sure the ruling biased at least some poll respondents. I also think many poll respondents are voting with the idea of how the fluff indicates the mawloc should ideally work, rather than what the rules actually indicate. But, you can't turn back the clock, so I guess that is what we're stuck with.

There's also another bias, in that any Tyranid player is going to read, based on the subject matter. Most nid players will certainly be in favor of the the Mawloc having a better rules interpretation. Other players will be biased by the earlier ruling, and go along with you on it, because you already ruled that way.

As stated before, doing a poll before making the ruling is better data gathering. Doing it now just lets you say "see, I'm right".

Most non-Nid players will not just say "Oh well, that's the ruling." This is evidenced by the fact people are still arguing the point. Sometimes I wonder if GW looks around and says... "Wait they want us to define anywhere, and to explain what a table is?" I mean is the RAW Nazis had there way our rulebooks and codices would be bigger than the tax code and the health care bill on steroids.

It doesn't matter whether the Mawloc is on top of models or not because he has the Terror Of The Deep rule.

However, other models which don't have a special rule, do need to define an area where their deep strike footprint intersects impassable terrain because of mishaps.

agnosto wrote:
table = static
terrain = static
model = not static
model not equal to table

however
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Kilkrazy wrote:It doesn't matter whether the Mawloc is on top of models or not because he has the Terror Of The Deep rule.

However, other models which don't have a special rule, do need to define an area where their deep strike footprint intersects impassable terrain because of mishaps.

Yep. The footprint would be the base size (which you already said )

witchcore wrote:agnosto wrote:
table = static
terrain = static
model = not static
model not equal to table

however
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Tigers are always big cats; big cats are not always tigers.

To put it a different way, models count-as, implying there is an important difference between them.

Kilkrazy wrote:Some models are static, for instance drop pods.

It didn't start the game on the table (like a hill does) and it moved at some point, therefore it's not terrain.



Edit:
@ all,
I know people love to jump on each other on here and poke holes in each other's thought processes; I have my way of thinking, you all obviously have yours. Like I said, I'll discuss the matter with my opponent and either a) reach a consensus or b) roll off for it. The reason for this, IMHO, is that the people at GW write badly.

agnosto wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Some models are static, for instance drop pods.

It didn't start the game on the table (like a hill does) and it moved at some point, therefore it's not terrain.

For your information, Blood Angels Drop Pods can start the game on the table and do not move.

Gwar! wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Some models are static, for instance drop pods.

It didn't start the game on the table (like a hill does) and it moved at some point, therefore it's not terrain.

For your information, Blood Angels Drop Pods can start the game on the table and do not move.

Yeah, well, I can differentiate a model from a hill or ruin. I have my way of thinking, you have yours; neither of us would be wrong because the rules are poorly written.

@Agnosto Why are you trying to draw a definition between a static model and the table? One's a model you paid points for and can be blown up, etc. The other is part of the terrain. What's to get?

@Pika, it goes back to one of the points of contention regarding the Mawloc and it's relationship with the deep strike (DS) rules.

DS rules state to place a model anywhere on the table. Many people state that since their opponent's models are on the table, they constitute "the table" so they can place the model on an enemy model.

My point has always been that an enemy model is not part of the table so you may not place a model on top of another.

Edit: clarity

I am merely pointing out holes in the logic of static = terrain = table.

What if someone made an urban table with a working model train on it?

My interpretation of table is that it means the area of play, bounded by the table edge, outside of which models have no effective in game existence.

I agree with the theory that GW meant "within the play area". And the prior existence of Spore Mines and the Monolith meant they didn't think they'd need to say "yes, really" in the rules for the Mawloc.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am merely pointing out holes in the logic of static = terrain = table.

What if someone made an urban table with a working model train on it?

My interpretation of table is that it means the area of play, bounded by the table edge, outside of which models have no effective in game existence.

Refuting the premise for my reasoning doesn't detract from the concept that model does not equal table or terrain. I may not have expressed myself clearly enough but I am fairly firm in my opinion; not agreeing with me is fine, of course.

Edit:
Rereading your statement, I see you agree with me but we arrived at our conclusions differently.

agnosto wrote:@Pika, it goes back to one of the points of contention regarding the Mawloc and it's relationship with the deep strike (DS) rules.

DS rules state to place a model anywhere on the table. Many people state that since their opponent's models are on the table, they constitute "the table" so they can place the model on an enemy model.

My point has always been that an enemy model is not part of the table so you may not place a model on top of another.

Edit: clarity

Yes, I get that much and have argued the same point before. (My posts go ignored though.) I want to know why you're trying to justify it by saying models aren't static. Surely you can just say that it's a model and follows a different set of rules to the table because of it?

Pika_power wrote:

Yes, I get that much and have argued the same point before. (My posts go ignored though.) I want to know why you're trying to justify it by saying models aren't static. Surely you can just say that it's a model and follows a different set of rules to the table because of it?

It was just the train of thought through which I arrived at my conclusion; different people, different thought patterns.

Ah, okay.

Then please allow me to present my train of though, as I believe it clears up this entire mess.


By RAW, I can only deepstrike models onto the table. I RAI that into deepstriking on the base 6'x4' playing area, because it's stupid to be unable to deepstrike on a floor, akin to models without eyes not being able to shoot. I then see that provisions have been made for terrain and because I consider terrain to be essentially part of the table, I RAI it into deepstriking into terrain. I halt the RAI train at saying my models are a part of the table. Others do not. We must wait for Games Workshop to decide. It's purely a RAI matter.

Pika_power wrote:Ah, okay.

Then please allow me to present my train of though, as I believe it clears up this entire mess.


By RAW, I can only deepstrike models onto the table. I RAI that into deepstriking on the base 6'x4' playing area, because it's stupid to be unable to deepstrike on a floor, akin to models without eyes not being able to shoot. I then see that provisions have been made for terrain and because I consider terrain to be essentially part of the table, I RAI it into deepstriking into terrain. I halt the RAI train at saying my models are a part of the table. Others do not. We must wait for Games Workshop to decide. It's purely a RAI matter.

What if someone says they want to deep strike onto a spot of the table/playing area that is beneath a unit of models? Does that portion of the table become non-table because there are models on it?

It's Schrodinger's Cat. Depending upon the phase you are in, and the action taken, certain elements of the table cease to exist for one player while existing for the other. I'd do the math, but honestly all your heads would explode.

-Yad

Circumstantial evidence:

The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules which at least strongly imply that they are permitted to Deep Strike directly onto enemy units.

The recent WD battle report shows the Mawloc DSing directly onto enemy units.

These are not conclusive, but are indicative.

Mannahnin wrote:Circumstantial evidence:

The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules which at least strongly imply that they are permitted to Deep Strike directly onto enemy units.

Not at all. The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules that tell you what to do instead of resolving a mishap. Neither of them have rules that allow them to avoid being placed on the table to start their deep strike.

The way you phrased that, you're including one of your conclusions as one of your premises. That's usually considered circular.

Pika_power wrote:Ah, okay.

Then please allow me to present my train of though, as I believe it clears up this entire mess.


By RAW, I can only deepstrike models onto the table. I RAI that into deepstriking on the base 6'x4' playing area, because it's stupid to be unable to deepstrike on a floor, akin to models without eyes not being able to shoot. I then see that provisions have been made for terrain and because I consider terrain to be essentially part of the table, I RAI it into deepstriking into terrain. I halt the RAI train at saying my models are a part of the table. Others do not. We must wait for Games Workshop to decide. It's purely a RAI matter.

You can wait till the GW FAQ comes out all you want. If and when it comes out stating that clearly RAI says it can DS onto models the same whiners and gripers will say "Well FAQ is just GW house rules. It's not an errata so I am still gonna rules lawyer about it in every game till I either get my way or people stop playing me!

Broodfather, that's not necessary.

I'm quite certain that some of the folks arguing are doing it because they genuinely believe their intepretation to be correct, or because they're erring on the side of caution.

There is no need to levy uncharitable personal characterizations.

Mannahnin wrote:Broodfather, that's not necessary.

I'm quite certain that some of the folks arguing are doing it because they genuinely believe their intepretation to be correct, or because they're erring on the side of caution.

There is no need to levy uncharitable personal characterizations.

My point was those same people will be the first to call the GW FAQs "just house rules" and will feel they have no bearing on the game. So waiting for the FAQ will accomplish nothing the rules lawyering anti-RAI crowd will still be the same as they are.

Unless you don't play GW FAQ's as just house rules.

Mannahnin wrote:The way you phrased that, you're including one of your conclusions as one of your premises. That's usually considered circular.

I don't follow. Not sure you're talking about my comment, but you said, "The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules which at least strongly imply that they are permitted to Deep Strike directly onto enemy units. "

I don't see that. When I read the rules for the monolith, it doesn't imply that I can land on enemy units. It tells me what happens if I happen to scatter onto enemy models.

From the Necron Codex, page 21, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance to make space for the monolith."

If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

When I read the rules for spore mines, it doesn't imply that they can land on enemy models. Rather, it requires that you land your spore mines before any units are deployed. It's a very simple step to conclude that spore mines can never land on enemy models, if they're required to Deep Strike before any other models are on the table. (That's page 48, BTW)

So I don't follow your claiming that my argument is circular. I'm simply refuting what you had stated.

Again, there is nothing anyone can do to convince me that my models are the table. I accept that 'the table' is not well defined, but I can assure you that whatever the definition, my models aren't the table. Referring back to page vi, I still think that it is obvious that the table is one requirement needed to play the game, and two armies are a different requirement.

For spore mines he is talking about 4th edition Spore Mines.

Good thing we are in 5th edition.

Brother Ramses wrote:Good thing we are in 5th edition.

4th edition CODEX spore mines as used in 5th edition main rules

So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

Redbeard wrote:

If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me then. If you admit that the Monolith can be placed right next to your models (within 1''), thus not adhering to one of the restrictions in the Movement section of the rulebook, then why can't it just deep strike directly onto the unit? You're already half-way there The Deep Strike rule let's you place it anywhere, so if you can ignore the 1'' restriction, then you should ignore the impassable terrain restriction as well, right?

-Yad

Brother Ramses wrote:So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

they also realized that my spore mines can move their normal 6" after they scatter each turn, then they can assault you, and when they get into B2B contact they explode (and likely die) then explode again, because exploding doesnt say anything about removing the model as a casualty, and if it doesnt say you can, then you can't.

good thing we have this all cleared up, now to finish painting my spore mines of super-doom.

BROODFATHER wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Broodfather, that's not necessary.

I'm quite certain that some of the folks arguing are doing it because they genuinely believe their intepretation to be correct, or because they're erring on the side of caution.

There is no need to levy uncharitable personal characterizations.

My point was those same people will be the first to call the GW FAQs "just house rules" and will feel they have no bearing on the game. So waiting for the FAQ will accomplish nothing the rules lawyering anti-RAI crowd will still be the same as they are.

My point being that some of these people will do nothing of the kind, so it's unjust and insulting if you lump all the people who disagree with you into one category with the most annoying ones.

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

they also realized that my spore mines can move their normal 6" after they scatter each turn, then they can assault you, and when they get into B2B contact they explode (and likely die) then explode again, because exploding doesnt say anything about removing the model as a casualty, and if it doesnt say you can, then you can't.

good thing we have this all cleared up, now to finish painting my spore mines of super-doom.

Do you include the Spore Mine in resolving hits at Str4 and AP4? It does say to place the large blast marker over the Spore Mine indicating that it does get hit as well in the resultant blast. So that would take care of you thinking that your SMoD (Spore Mine of Doom) stays on the board after exploding since it would get wounded on 2+, get no save against it's own attack, and per the rules, "....for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:The way you phrased that, you're including one of your conclusions as one of your premises. That's usually considered circular.

I don't follow. Not sure you're talking about my comment, but you said, "The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules which at least strongly imply that they are permitted to Deep Strike directly onto enemy units. "

And you responded “Neither of them have rules that allow them to avoid being placed on the table to start their deep strike.”

That is, you are saying that being placed (or targeted) on top of another unit is “avoid(ing) being placed on the table”, which is one of your conclusions. Making it a premise as well is circular reasoning.

By the interpretation I’m using, the phrasing “anywhere on the table” as used in the Deep Strike rules, can include a point directly on top of an enemy unit. As has already been pointed out, what exactly constitutes “the table” is very debatable, but I have recently come to the conclusion that apparently GW is using it in the sense of “the play area”, here, because that’s most consistent with how the Mawloc is written, with how the Monolith is written, and with how Spore Mines used to be written.

Redbeard wrote:From the Necron Codex, page 21, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance to make space for the monolith."

If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

I can understand that premise, and I agree that it’s a workable way to play, but if the rule allows you to place it within 1”, GW’s already broken the proscription on proximity to enemy models. That space is no longer sacrosanct.

Redbeard wrote:When I read the rules for spore mines…

Apologies. I was forgetting the way spore mines have changed. They are no longer a directly comparable case, except for historical reference prior to the appearance of the new codex.

Redbeard wrote:Again, there is nothing anyone can do to convince me that my models are the table. I accept that 'the table' is not well defined, but I can assure you that whatever the definition, my models aren't the table. Referring back to page vi, I still think that it is obvious that the table is one requirement needed to play the game, and two armies are a different requirement.

Given the rules of the Mawloc, and given the evidence (certainly not conclusive, given their error rate, but indicative) of the recent WD battle report in which they were used, and given the way spore mines USED to work (at least), do you sincerely doubt how GW’s going to rule it if and when it gets into the FAQ? GBF and I have each put up a bottle of vodka so far. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

I'll put one up as well. My bet is on you can put it anywhere.

apwill4765 wrote:I'll put one up as well. My bet is on you can put it anywhere.

So we will just disagree on agreeing that you are wrong. Got it.

Are you putting your vodka where your mouth is?

Redbeard wrote:

Again, there is nothing anyone can do to convince me that my models are the table. I accept that 'the table' is not well defined, but I can assure you that whatever the definition, my models aren't the table. Referring back to page vi, I still think that it is obvious that the table is one requirement needed to play the game, and two armies are a different requirement.

I don't understand. You say your models aren't part of the table. You say terrain is part of the table. What happens when your tank is destroyed? It is now terrain is it not? Is your destroyed tank now part of the table? You bought it, you painted it and you brought it to the game. It is now destroyed and considered terrain. Can an enemy model deep strike, legally in your mind, directly on top of your destroyed tank and into terrain?

A tank becomes terrain when destroyed. There are rules to account for that when that situation arises. As far as I know, there are no rules that make models terrain before that specific instance.

Insomuch that once a tank was destroyed and then became terrain, a model would be able to deep strike onto it.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

they also realized that my spore mines can move their normal 6" after they scatter each turn, then they can assault you, and when they get into B2B contact they explode (and likely die) then explode again, because exploding doesnt say anything about removing the model as a casualty, and if it doesnt say you can, then you can't.

good thing we have this all cleared up, now to finish painting my spore mines of super-doom.

Do you include the Spore Mine in resolving hits at Str4 and AP4? It does say to place the large blast marker over the Spore Mine indicating that it does get hit as well in the resultant blast. So that would take care of you thinking that your SMoD (Spore Mine of Doom) stays on the board after exploding since it would get wounded on 2+, get no save against it's own attack, and per the rules, "....for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

yep, thats why i added in parenthesis "and likely die" and at that point they would explode again, like i said.

Yad wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me then. If you admit that the Monolith can be placed right next to your models (within 1''), thus not adhering to one of the restrictions in the Movement section of the rulebook, then why can't it just deep strike directly onto the unit? You're already half-way there The Deep Strike rule let's you place it anywhere, so if you can ignore the 1'' restriction, then you should ignore the impassable terrain restriction as well, right?

The rules for Deep Strike are what matters when you are resolving a Deep Strike. It's not a normal move, it's a Deep Strike, and as such, only needs to deal with the rules specified for Deep Striking. Hence, "place on the table" is what matters. The 1" issue is resolved within the Deep Strike rules for these cases - either you're mishapping, or you're triggering a special rule instead of mishapping. Either way, the end result of the Deep Strike is that you're not within 1", so no problem.

Mannahnin wrote:
By the interpretation I’m using, the phrasing “anywhere on the table” as used in the Deep Strike rules, can include a point directly on top of an enemy unit. As has already been pointed out, what exactly constitutes “the table” is very debatable, but I have recently come to the conclusion that apparently GW is using it in the sense of “the play area”, here, because that’s most consistent with how the Mawloc is written, with how the Monolith is written, and with how Spore Mines used to be written.

Indeed, the Table refers to the play area. That's fine. Problem is, two objects cannot occupy the same space (you won't find this in the 40k rulebook. You might in an entry-level physics text, but then if they go into quantum stuff new rules apply). So you cannot place your model in the play area if my model is already there. You simply can't do it. The best you can do is place your model on top of my model, which isn't what is required.

The rules on page 95 don't say, 'pick where you want to go', they say, 'place'. That means you put it down there.

I can understand that premise, and I agree that it’s a workable way to play, but if the rule allows you to place it within 1”, GW’s already broken the proscription on proximity to enemy models. That space is no longer sacrosanct.

This is resolved before the conclusion of the Deep Strike action, and as such, doesn't break the prohibition at all. You never leave the Deep Strike step with your model within 1" of an opponent's model - either a mishap occurs, or a special rule is triggered, and the proximity rule is restored.

Given the rules of the Mawloc, and given the evidence (certainly not conclusive, given their error rate, but indicative) of the recent WD battle report in which they were used, and given the way spore mines USED to work (at least), do you sincerely doubt how GW’s going to rule it if and when it gets into the FAQ? GBF and I have each put up a bottle of vodka so far. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

I've seen WD battle reports played wrong so many times that you cannot seriously be considering them as evidence. Given the rules for the Mawloc, I can understand that they may have wanted it to do something else. The fact that they cannot write rules that do what they want doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm sure that we can find several other units that have rules that don't actually do what they're intended to do. I've also seen FAQ answers that go one way, then go the other way, and then settle on 'well, that's what it says, so go with what's actually written'.

If they issue Errata for this, I'd believe that they'll change it so that it is obvious what the Mawloc can do. If it were up to me, I'd write it so that you don't actually Deep Strike, but you place the blast marker first, resolve any hits beneath it, and then place the Mawloc where the Blast Marker was. If the Blast Marker scatters off the table or into impassable terrain, go to Deep Strike mishap resolution. That's clean and elegant and leaves no doubt as to what is supposed to be happening. If they FAQ it, it's anyone's guess which way they'll go. I wouldn't have expected them to rule that a chaos model with wings is different than one with a jump pack (for the same cost), but they did, because that's what the book actually says.

Anyhow, I don't drink hard liquor. I'd be happy to see your vodka with a six pack of your choice of microbrew, though I claim that if they declare it Errata (as in, we meant to write it differently) rather than just an FAQ answer, that means I was right.

I place my Mawloc, not on top of your models, but underneath your models! (I place my mawloc in that space in between the model's base and the table) Now what?

Redbeard wrote:
Indeed, the Table refers to the play area. That's fine. Problem is, two objects cannot occupy the same space (you won't find this in the 40k rulebook. You might in an entry-level physics text, but then if they go into quantum stuff new rules apply). So you cannot place your model in the play area if my model is already there. You simply can't do it. The best you can do is place your model on top of my model, which isn't what is required.

The rules on page 95 don't say, 'pick where you want to go', they say, 'place'. That means you put it down there.

Earlier you mentioned that the Wobbly model syndrome doesn't apply to models, this is where the WMS rules would apply, I would LIKE to place my model on top of yours, however, I dont want to scratch the paint, so we (theoretically) agree to use a die or somesuch as a placeholder for the center position of the mawloc before rolling scatter.

and if you choose to not allow the WMS, then I would be forced to try and place my model on top of yours without damaging them, not something I want to do at all.

technically guys, you are not placing your mawloc on top of your opponents models, but onto the table in the exact location of their models, resolving what the codex says to. It says anywhere. So I place my model where yours is. Plain as day. Cant beleive this discussion is still going.

Gwar! wrote:
If you don't like it, don't use it.

Lol Gwar says something reasonable for once.

And I guess I can see how you didnt like how they worded that. But in the rule book it clearly says you can pick a point anywhere on the board. It doesn't say they spot has to be smart or not affect your units. That's why this jank works

Natfka wrote:technically guys, you are not placing your mawloc on top of your opponents models, but onto the table in the exact location of their models, resolving what the codex says to. It says anywhere. So I place my model where yours is. Plain as day. Cant beleive this discussion is still going.

So simple a caveman can create multiple threads about it?

Brother Ramses wrote:

Natfka wrote:technically guys, you are not placing your mawloc on top of your opponents models, but onto the table in the exact location of their models, resolving what the codex says to. It says anywhere. So I place my model where yours is. Plain as day. Cant beleive this discussion is still going.

So simple a caveman can create multiple threads about it?

Yep!

Just because people spam whining threads doesn't mean the topic isn't simple.

witchcore wrote:
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Has everyone just missed this point by Witchcore? The transitive properties listed above follows the exact guidelines for deepstriking and allows models to be placed on other models to start the deepstriking process.

It's generally accepted that you can deepstrike into terrain. There are restrictions (levels in buildings). However, based on being able to deepstrike into terrain, the following rules apply:

Rule #1 terrain = table (if we can't agree on this, then the rest of this discussion does not apply).

Rule #2 a subset of terrain is impassable terrain.
Therefore: impassable terrain = terrain = table.

Rule #3 per the rule quoted above on page 13 of the rule book - "Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."
Therefore: models (friends or enemies) = impassable terrain = terrain = table.

Rule #4 per the deepstrike rules on page 95 "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table." Based on the transitive properties above, you have:
Place a model on the table = Place a model on terrain = Place a model on impassable terrain = Place a model on models (friends or enemies)

The creation of the deepstrike mishap table is how a player handles the final result of the deepstrike rule if it triggers a mishap condition. And as Yakface indicated before, the wobbly model syndrome rule addresses any hardship for placing a model on other models before the deepstrike process is complete. Page 13 again "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard...."

Since:

models (friends or enemies) = impassable terrain = terrain

applies, the transitive properties above allow the wobbly model syndrome guidelines to address this problem.

By God, that seems...entirely Rules as Written!

Transitive properties do not work in that example.

Based on the formula of:

If a = b and b = c, then a = c.

However, the term included is "counts as". Which then allows models to "count as" impassable terrain but not limited to impassable terrain.

For example, in your formula, the entire table would count as impassable terrain and force mishaps no matter where you land which we know is not the case.

Nice attempt at rationalization, but doesn't pass the smell check.

Impassible terrain is terrain. Therefore if a model "counts as" impassible terrain" then it "counts as" terrain.

Terrain is part of the table. Therefore, if it "counts as" terrain, then it "counts as" an section of the table.

If something is a section of the table, I can place a deep striking model on it. Therefore, if it "counts as" a section of the table, then it's okay to place a model on it.

That's the long winded version of the equivalences. Of course, that's still subject to the "Placement during deep strike isn't placement; the scatter movement during deep strike isn't movement" arguments that tend to be delayed until situations like this where a potential advantage can be argued.

I understand that, but if you want to carry that over then you also cannot move, cannot shoot, and cannot assault since terrain or impassable terrain cannot do any of those things.

So as you pointed out for me, while it models can "count as" certain things, it is not bound to be those things. So therefore when you try to equalize the formula it ONLY works part of the time. You only happen to point out the times when it works for you. Others are pointing out when it works for them.

Simple enough to explain,

7 + 3 = 10

7 + 3 (sometimes counts as 4) = 10 but sometimes 11

I think Malice has made the equation simple enough for me to run my events and allow deep strike placement anywhere in the play area...

If you want to play it so that enemy units count as terrain I can think of many examples that will shoot big holes in that premise. You are just opening another big can of worms, that's all.

G

Krak_kirby wrote:I think Malice has made the equation simple enough for me to run my events and allow deep strike placement anywhere in the play area...

So would you also let me consider my models to count as terrain when an opponent wants to shoot or assault me? By that formula, I would clearly be within those "rules".

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

witchcore wrote:
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Has everyone just missed this point by Witchcore? The transitive properties listed above follows the exact guidelines for deepstriking and allows models to be placed on other models to start the deepstriking process.

Wow, that's an amazing argument. That because models are impassable terrain, clearly enemy models must be allowed to be placed there... Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.

First, other models are not impassable terrain. The transitive law falls apart right here. Terrain = table. But, on page iv, armies are a distinct entity to table. So, while they may count as terrain when asking whether other models can move through them, they're not terrain, they are models. When you ask, "are enemy models terrain", the answer is no, they are not terrain. They simply count as terrain for some movement purposes.

I believe that you can place your model on impassable terrain, if you so choose. But, if you're saying that the rules on page 13 apply during a deep strike (I don't think they do), then surely you cannot also be claiming that you can ignore the definition of impassable terrain on that same page, "Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into."

You can't have this one both ways. If you're saying that the movement phase definitions of terrain apply throughout, then the movement phase on restrictions about such terrain must also apply throughout.

quick question: I don't have a Nid codex with me, but does it say that when the Mawloc arrives the other models are moved out of the way or no?

WarsawTom wrote:quick question: I don't have a Nid codex with me, but does it say that when the Mawloc arrives the other models are moved out of the way or no?

Only after they are hit with the Mawloc attack and only if the Mawloc cannot be placed 1" away from the unit that was attacked. So it would be dependent on how many models are wounded and then killed as to whether the need to move models out of the way would need to happen.

I don't know what to think anymore. It's like a million psykers tearing my mind apart. hahaha.

but I have this to add to this thread:

White Dwarf issue 360 January 2010 pg. 65 (in the photo caption)

"As the Terminators powered down their weapons from fighting the Raveners, the ground beneath them ruptures and a creature of monstrous proportions surged out of the ground. Two terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them. The remainder of the squad scattered as the Mawloc announced its arrival onto the battlefield with a deafining, alien howl."


this is a GW interpretation. Is it not?

WD reported that a model with a Mark of the Wulfen got 7 thunderhammer attacks which is not legal. WD battle reports are known for their inaccuracies.

And while I do not have that WD unpacked right now, the Mawloc could have just as easily rolled for scatter and ended up beneath said terminators.

also in the design notes section of White Dwarf issue 360 January 2010, on pg. 22 under Subterranean Assault it is written:

"The Mawloc, on the other hand, works quite differently, and is able to erupt from the ground beneath its enemies, inflicting a Strength 6, AP 2 hit on any model caught in its cataclysmic arrival!"...(this isn't a battle report).

I'm just trying to say that GW seems to be pointing us in the direction that the Mawloc is actually allowed to do the deep strike within an enemy unit. I'm just pointing out how this can lead to alot of confusion and misinterpretation among players.

No one is questioning whether or not the Mawloc can arrive from beneath a unit. It is being questioned if it can originally be placed there or if it needs to scatter there.

oh, I see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hopefully there will be an errata or faq soon, to help ease the tension for both tyranid players and non-tyranid players. And I hope this is resolved before 'Ard Boyz tournaments start for 40K this year.

First round is on me if GW rules that the Mawloc can't choose to deepstrike onto units. We all know that is how it will be ruled, and all these silly, incorrect, wishlisting, non-raw arguments won't change it.

I'm now willing to officially wager on it, because I'm calling the bluff of these asinine arguments. How confident are you in the "models aren't the table" argument.

Redbeard wrote:

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

witchcore wrote:
The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

so if impassable terrain=table, and other models=impassable terrain, then other models must = Table.

Has everyone just missed this point by Witchcore? The transitive properties listed above follows the exact guidelines for deepstriking and allows models to be placed on other models to start the deepstriking process.

Wow, that's an amazing argument. That because models are impassable terrain, clearly enemy models must be allowed to be placed there... Yeah, that makes all sorts of sense.

First, other models are not impassable terrain. The transitive law falls apart right here. Terrain = table. But, on page iv, armies are a distinct entity to table. So, while they may count as terrain when asking whether other models can move through them, they're not terrain, they are models. When you ask, "are enemy models terrain", the answer is no, they are not terrain. They simply count as terrain for some movement purposes.

I believe that you can place your model on impassable terrain, if you so choose. But, if you're saying that the rules on page 13 apply during a deep strike (I don't think they do), then surely you cannot also be claiming that you can ignore the definition of impassable terrain on that same page, "Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into."

You can't have this one both ways. If you're saying that the movement phase definitions of terrain apply throughout, then the movement phase on restrictions about such terrain must also apply throughout.

the way i see it is Deep strike is a Special rule that only applies to certain models (and is not normal movement), i first select where i would like to arrive and this rule allows me to select anywhere on the table, and per the impassable terrain rule "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it.", now since the excepion has been made, "The Deep Strike rules says (rulebook, pg 95): "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, "where i arrive and where i would like to arrive are not the same. now i need to find out if i arrive where i intend to arrive or if i scatter. ".....roll the scatter dice. If you roll a hit the model stays where it is, but if an arrow is shown this determines the direction the model is scattered in. If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position." now the second paragraph of the rule recognizes that you may be in violation of some pre established general rules and specificaly tells you how to resolve that violation. "Once this is done, the unit's remaining models are arranged around the first one...If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed because they would land off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model, or on top or within 1" of an enemy model, something has gone wrong." and now i must adhear to the DS mishap table. "The controlling player must roll on the deep strike Mishap table and apply the results." after my results are applied i would no longer be in violation of the general rules.
To sum it all up, during Deep strike i am allowed to place a model in impassable terrain until the deep stike has concluded. Once the deep stike portion of my movement has ended I now must adhear to the more general rules, if i have models that are still in violation of the general rules i must handle those models with the results of the mishap table. All rules have been now been satisfied.

Sigh. Yes, we all know what the pro-"I can start my deep strike on top of your unit" stance is. No need to repeat the whole thing again, just for us to point out that you have to place the initial model for your deep strike and that the rules prohibit you from placing your model on top of my model, regardless of whether anything is or isn't impassable terrain. And then there;s those that consider deep strike, to include the initial model placement before scatter, to be part of your movement, and of course, you cannot move within 1" of an enmey model during your movement phase.

Let's see, have I posted all the counterarguments?

Anyways, we're going to disagree until GW posts an FAQ, and probably even then.

sigh. but the counterarguments all fail to acknowledge the fact that special rules are exceptions to general rules thus during certain points of the game the general rules are suspended or may not apply

Yep. And the basic disagreement between the two viewpoints is on whether or not a unit can indeed start it's deep strike move in a location where it would mishap if it does not scatter. I don't believe that it can, for the reasons stated above. Spore mines are a special case, the only special case. No other unit has anything in print saying that they can do this, so they cannot. Until GW FAQs it, that's my viewpoint, and I do believe that if they FAQ it, that's what they'll say. I could be wrong tho. If so, so be it, just makes my Nids a bit better.

So, the Monolith may deepstrike onto enemies because it is a skimmer?

@Yakface,
To address some of your previous questions/comments, I offer the following:

There are 3 Phases of game (1) Movement, (2) Shooting and (3) Assault. Deep Striking occurs in Movement Phase.

After Reserve rolls, Deep Striking consists of (1) model placement onto the table, (2) scatter, (3) Check for Mishap, (4) placement of rest of unit

The step (4), placement of rest of unit, counts as Movement in the Movement Phase. Note: Deep Striking does not count as Assault.

The first model placement on the table is the player’s intended point you wish your unit to Move to as you are picking your point where you intend for it to appear from Deep Striking. Model placement is not Movement. However, the first model placement prior to scatter is the player’s intended and desired point of the unit’s Movement.

Scattering after model placement does not count as Movement. By definition, scattering is the act of adjusting a model that represents a point a unit may occupy. It is an unintended adjustment to the intended point where you wanted the model to appear.

Mishap’s occur when a unit does something unplanned by the player. The rules state it is the result of something going wrong beyond the player’s control which in game is represented by the unplanned result from the scattering action. Therefore, Mishap’s do not occur by player design.

1” rule states you may not move within 1” of the enemy unless assaulting. The logic is that if you cannot move within 1” unless assaulting, then you cannot perform an action of “intent to move” within 1” either. Therefore, you cannot intentionally place a model within 1” of enemies when Deep Striking as you would be intending to move within 1” and intentionally trying to violate the 1” rule by an act that results as Movement when completed.

Once the final position is found, model placement for the rest of the unit occurs. As mentioned earlier, the unit now counts as having moved.

Note: I have not addressed models “counting as” impassible terrain nor have I addressed the definition of “table” as I believe neither are relevant or applicable for this discussion if the logic and interpretation above is accurate.

PS - I'm sorry it took so long to respond, real life took its toll on me for a couple days...

Tac

Redbeard wrote:The rules for Deep Strike are what matters when you are resolving a Deep Strike. It's not a normal move, it's a Deep Strike, and as such, only needs to deal with the rules specified for Deep Striking. Hence, "place on the table" is what matters. The 1" issue is resolved within the Deep Strike rules for these cases - either you're mishapping, or you're triggering a special rule instead of mishapping. Either way, the end result of the Deep Strike is that you're not within 1", so no problem.

I agree with the latter, but not the former. Given that we need to resolve the scatter before the unit’s actual placement is determined, and before 1” proximity (and whether a mishap is triggered) is discovered, I think Yak’s theory that the initial model is only a marker holds. While the process given in the rulebook says to place a model, if a mishap occurs, you’re going to be picking that model right back up. Despite the placement of a model, the unit is not actually there until and unless the final position is determined and any mishap (or special rule avoiding it, in the cases of the Monolith and Mawloc) is resolved.

Redbeard wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:By the interpretation I’m using, the phrasing “anywhere on the table” as used in the Deep Strike rules, can include a point directly on top of an enemy unit.

Indeed, the Table refers to the play area. That's fine. Problem is, two objects cannot occupy the same space (you won't find this in the 40k rulebook. You might in an entry-level physics text, but then if they go into quantum stuff new rules apply). So you cannot place your model in the play area if my model is already there. You simply can't do it. The best you can do is place your model on top of my model, which isn't what is required.

The rules on page 95 don't say, 'pick where you want to go', they say, 'place'. That means you put it down there.

All right. But how about if the model is only being placed as a marker? Much like placing a blast marker on top of a unit. The marker goes on top, and you scatter/resolve the effect from there. As Yak points out, despite a model being placed, the unit is not actually on the table until AFTER the scatter (and mishap, if applicable) is resolved. When you scatter that first model, he’s not considered to be literally moving laterally across the table. The scatter isn’t reduced by impassible or stopped by the board edge. It’s a process of determining WHERE the actual Deep Strike move will land, and that unit isn’t actually considered to be on the table yet, despite the use of a model from said unit.

Redbeard wrote:

I can understand that premise, and I agree that it’s a workable way to play, but if the rule allows you to place it within 1”, GW’s already broken the proscription on proximity to enemy models. That space is no longer sacrosanct.

This is resolved before the conclusion of the Deep Strike action, and as such, doesn't break the prohibition at all. You never leave the Deep Strike step with your model within 1" of an opponent's model - either a mishap occurs, or a special rule is triggered, and the proximity rule is restored.

Good point. Okay, so let me apply my concept above. If the initially-placed model (prior to scatter) is really a marker indicating the potential/aimed position of the unit after the DS is completed, and since the Mishap table or the Monolith or Mawloc special rules serve to prevent the actual units from sharing the same physical space or being within an inch, then were is the problem? With the Monolith- move the unit out of its way. With the Mawloc, resolve the large ordnance marker attack, then place the Mawloc/displace the targeted unit as instructed. With other units, resolve the Mishap.

Redbeard wrote: I've seen WD battle reports played wrong so many times that you cannot seriously be considering them as evidence.

Believe it or not, that’s what I’m doing. I’m pointing out that the guy who wrote the book appears to have played it that way in a game of which we have a public record. Yes, WD battle reports are notorious for occasional errors. That’s why I said its indicative and circumstantial evidence, not conclusive.

Redbeard wrote:If they issue Errata for this, I'd believe that they'll change it so that it is obvious what the Mawloc can do. If it were up to me, I'd write it so that you don't actually Deep Strike, but you place the blast marker first, resolve any hits beneath it, and then place the Mawloc where the Blast Marker was. If the Blast Marker scatters off the table or into impassable terrain, go to Deep Strike mishap resolution. That's clean and elegant and leaves no doubt as to what is supposed to be happening.

Yup. That’s how I’d have done it too. I wish they’d hire a darn technical editor to fix this stuff.

Redbeard wrote: If they FAQ it, it's anyone's guess which way they'll go. I wouldn't have expected them to rule that a chaos model with wings is different than one with a jump pack (for the same cost), but they did, because that's what the book actually says.

Anyhow, I don't drink hard liquor. I'd be happy to see your vodka with a six pack of your choice of microbrew, though I claim that if they declare it Errata (as in, we meant to write it differently) rather than just an FAQ answer, that means I was right.

I’m perfectly happy betting a sixer of nice microbrew instead. Vodka was GBF’s idea. I drink more beer nowadays. Is it just me, or does the addition of alcohol to the discussion make things feel more cordial and friendly?

I concede that the FAQs are sometimes unpredictable and occasionally dumb (like the wings v. jump pack distinction you cited).

I still feel pretty confident that GW is going to rule it this way. Whether they call it a FAQ or Errata I can’t predict, though I suspect that it’s going to be just an FAQ. My original bet was that when the GW FAQ comes out, GW will say that the Mawloc can target its DS right onto enemy units. I think the text is actually ambiguous, but that the RAI is clear enough to know what the Mawloc's supposed to do. Your focus seems to be more on the RAW test. The existing bet does not consider whether the eventual ruling will be called a FAQ or an Errata. Just whether GW is going to say “yes, you can do it” or “no, you can’t.” Are you up for that bet?

Tactica wrote:
There are 3 Phases of game (1) Movement, (2) Shooting and (3) Assault. Deep Striking occurs in Movement Phase.


1” rule states you may not move within 1” of the enemy unless assaulting. The logic is that if you cannot move within 1” unless assaulting, then you cannot perform an action of “intent to move” within 1” either. Therefore, you cannot intentionally place a model within 1” of enemies when Deep Striking as you would be intending to move within 1” and intentionally trying to violate the 1” rule by an act that results as Movement when completed.

the 1" rule is a general rule that applies to unit movement in the moving and shooting phase

the Deep Strike special rule gives an exception to that restriction by saying you may place the model anywhere. If i wanted to I could place a deep striking blood thirster on the top of a flagpole in the center of a 6 story building on the corner of the table, it might not be a good place to put the model, but I could. Under most circumstances this is not a problem, but what about when the place I want to put my model is on top of your models?

in a permissive ruleset I need something that tells me I can do something, and in this case I have a special rule which allows it (deep strike) which is a specific rule about a type of deployment that allows a player to place the model anywhere on the table. It is a classic case of specific vs general. Naturally no one wants their opponent to physically set a model on top of their finely painted/converted minis, and this is resolved by utilizing the Wobbly Model Syndrome rule. This ends up working out extremely well because the end result of the deep strike (usually a mishap) would result in the deep striking model not being on top of the existing models, so there will be no case of confusion of the actual position of the models once the deep strike has been resolved.

Please take a moment to let that sink in, the literal translation of the text in the deep strike special rule does not include any restrictions or limitations on where you may place the model (on the table, of course) and as a special rule it takes precedence over the general rules governing movement.

"Anywhere" does not override "may not be placed in impassable terrain" as "Anywhere" is NOT specific. It is in fact General.

WBB vs SA vs ATSKNF, Stubborn USR etc. They all give very good guidance on what Specific means within the GW ruleset. Saying you can be placed Anywhere does NOT override the specific prohibition on placing models in impassable terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Anywhere" does not override "may not be placed in impassable terrain" as "Anywhere" is NOT specific. It is in fact General.

WBB vs SA vs ATSKNF, Stubborn USR etc. They all give very good guidance on what Specific means within the GW ruleset. Saying you can be placed Anywhere does NOT override the specific prohibition on placing models in impassable terrain.

Exactly, Anywhere does not override other rules which are meant to always be in effect.

To elaborate, I do not believe Deep Striking occurs in absence or overrides other rules such as the 1" rule or the impassible terrain rule.

The reason I feel this way is that it does not expressly state other 'always in effect rules' in the game are overridden. Unless the Deep Strike rule expressly stated othwise, they must co-exist.

The 1" rule gives clear meaning, it is not to be violated unless assaulting. It gives no exception to Deep Striking. Deep Striking does occur in the movement phase. It's an addition to the Movement phase, it does not override the rules of movement phase except for where it expressly states. Example: Once final position is determined, you can make no further Movement in the Movement phase as you count as having moved already.

Therefore, you MAY place your model anywhere on the table. You may NOT violate the 1" rule intentionally. You may NOT place the model in impassible terrain.

Unless GW rules otherwise, this is the most conservative and non-evasive interpretation.

Im not refering to the word Anywhere, Im refering to the Special rule "Deep Strike" which as a whole, is more specific than the General restrictions on movement.

Also, not every unit can Deep Strike, almost every unit CAN assault, so in the general text of the rulebook they will describe restrictions to units which do NOT have special rules that override said restrictions.

Demogerg wrote:
the 1" rule is a general rule that applies to unit movement in the moving and shooting phase

I disagree. It is not general, its a rule that is always in effect.

the Deep Strike special rule gives an exception to that restriction by saying you may place the model anywhere. <snip>

It does not state that it overides the 1" or impassible terrain rule. Deep Striking exists in concert with other rules. Its merely a way to get your models into the play space, it does not give permission to override the other rules of the game.

in a permissive ruleset I need something that tells me I can do something, ...<snip>

We agree here. By my reading, the Deep Striking does not give you that permission. It's simply giving you an order of operations for the special deployment of your unit which when completed, counts as movement. It occurs in a Phase of the game where other standard - always in play rules still co-exist.

Please take a moment to let that sink in, the literal translation of the text in the deep strike special rule does not include any restrictions or limitations on where you may place the model (on the table, of course) and as a special rule it takes precedence over the general rules governing movement.

I have. I think we view the game in very similar principles. I can see you are a thoughtful person by your post. However, I believe we find our crossroads at whether or not Deep Striking overrides or is simply giving an order of operations while other rules such as 1" and impassible terrain are always in effect.

Cheers for the post,

Tac


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Demogerg wrote:Im not refering to the word Anywhere, Im refering to the Special rule "Deep Strike" which as a whole, is more specific than the General restrictions on movement.

Also, not every unit can Deep Strike, almost every unit CAN assault, so in the general text of the rulebook they will describe restrictions to units which do NOT have special rules that override said restrictions.

In my opinion, Deep Striking is a means of unit arrival. The same can be said for Reserves moving on from a table edge, models arriving from Outflank or passenger models Disembarking from a vehicle. All of these methods allow uints to be placed onto the table.

None of these rules override the always in effect rule of 1" and impassible terrain. In a permission based game, as you've pointed out, the rule must give permission to override.

Perhaps this is one of the many subtlties that have significant rammifications to the argument one way or the other. One of the many reasons we could stand to have GW rule on Deep Striking in general.

Tac

Tactica wrote:
I have. I think we view the game in very similar principles. I can see you are a thoughtful person by your post. However, I believe we find our crossroads at whether or not Deep Striking overrides or is simply giving an order of operations while other rules such as 1" and impassible terrain are always in effect.

Cheers for the post,

Tac

Im glad you are willing to debate without name-calling, that is something dakka is terrible about...

Do you agree that Special Rules allow units to do things that are normally not permitted?


if yes, then by looking at the special rule: Deep Strike, as a special rule, with specific text telling you that anywhere is a legal placement, you may then ignore any other restriction anywhere in the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactica wrote:

In my opinion, Deep Striking is a means of unit arrival. The same can be said for Reserves moving on from a table edge, models arriving from Outflank or passenger models Disembarking from a vehicle. All of these methods allow uints to be placed onto the table.


Tac

I just noticed this, there is a flaw in this arguement in that Reserves are part of the standard rules, passengers disembarking is also part of standard rules, where as Outflank and Deep Strike are two Special Rules which are separate and contained wholly within themselves, Outflank allows a unit to break the normal reserves rules and walk in from one of the side edges, and deep strike allows a unit to brake the normal reserve rules, and be placed "anywhere"