I have started this thread so we can discuss the implications of deep striking various types of units indepth. First I will define two groups of deep striking units - Aggressive & Defensive. It would advantageous to initially place an aggressive unit on top of an enemy unit. There is no advantage to initially placing a defensive unit on top of an enemy unit.

The Monolith has special rules that apply when it deep strikes. The Mawloc does not, it's special rule (Terror from the Deep) occurs after you have resolved the scatter. It would be to your advantage to initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit so that if you roll a hit or small scatter then said enemy unit will takes wounds from underneath the big blast marker. Three years ago there was a ruling at a large event that you could initially place Forgeworld spore mines on top of enemy units when they entered from reserve via deep strike. The Forgeworld spore mines have a S5 AP3 large blast marker. The new Mawloc has a S6 AP2 large blast marker. The following year the ruling regarding initial placement of Forgeworld spore mines was reversed. Basically it is an advantage to initially place an aggressive deep striking unit on top of an enemy unit so they will take wounds as a result of being under the large blast marker.

An example of a defensive deep striking unit are terminators. You don't want to place them on top of an enemy unit because there is greater possibility they will suffer a mishap. The average scatter on 2d6 is 7". Therefore, if you initially place a unit of three or more terminators (40 mm base) the odds are they will suffer a mishap. Based on a lot of experience and simple geometry I have found that to minimize the chance of a mishap occurring you must place the first model (marker) from the deep striking unit such that it is at least 7" away from the edge of any other unit and impassable terrain. I have years of experience deep striking since I have played Deathwing, 13th Company, daemons and to a lesser degree Necrons. All of these armies include many units that should be defensively deep striked.

The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand. If someone states they can initially place the deep striking unit on top of another unit then in my mind they want to be able to aggressively deploy units such as the Mawloc since the odds are much greater the large blast marker will cover some of the enemy unit. If anybody states that they want to initially place a defensive deep striking unit such as terminators on top of another unit or impassable terrain because they tend to roll large scatters then they are ignoring simple odds in favor of intuition. Odds are you will scatter 7" and one third of the time you won't scatter (that is, you'll roll a hit), so most often you will suffer a mishap if you were to initially place the deep striking unit on top of an enemy unit.

In closing going back to the Mawloc I originally said that the Mawloc does not have a special rule regarding deep strike but that is not completely the case so I'll cover it here. The Mawloc special rule Terror from the Deep does not state you can initially place the model on top of another unit or impassable terrain BUT it's special rule does state that the Mawloc does not suffer a mishap, you replace the blast marker with the Mawloc after all wounds have been resolved and/or removed from the table.

So in conclusion my interpration is that you cannot initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit when deep striking.

G

I'm confused by your argument, since you appear to have invented a distinction with the singular purpose of allowing the Monolith to deep strike on top of an enemy unit while preventing the Mawloc from doing the same. The Monolith's special rule kicks in "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." That means that both the Monolith and Mawlock's special rules trigger AFTER the roll for scatter.

I'd also like to take issue with your treatment of the statistics of deep strike. Depending on how large of a unit is being deep struck, and how large the targeted model is, various deep striking units would in fact arrive safely more than half of the time. The distance that a 40mm base would have to move to safely land if targetting a 25mm base would be 0.5" + 1" + 20mm = about 2.5". So a safe landing would be a 3 or higher on 2D6. Given that a scatter result happens two thirds of the time, a single terminator sized base would be perfectly safe 22/36 or about 61% of the time. Or rather:
- Safe but out of weapon range: 18.5%
- Safe and in weapon range: 42.5%
- Mishap: 39%

Moving on the unit I would most likely try to deep strike on top of something else, a unit of four or less flamers would be completely safe two thirds of the time if it targeted a single model, or at worst completely safe 61% of the time if dealing with bases fractionally larger than 1". (I can't quite work out the geometry in my head to see whether a 5th flamer would fit or not...). The probability distribution is harder to work out, but it's something like:
- Direct hit: 33%
- Scattering 8+" in the "away" hemisphere: 2/3 * 15/36 * 1/2: 13%
- Scattering 7-" in the "away" hemisphere: 2/3 * 21/36 * 1/2: 19.44%

That's leaving out the "towards" hemisphere, the odds of scattering over the target model, and the odds of scattering over the target model.

It's clear that it's "safer" to deep strike next to a target unit rather than on top of a target model, but deep striking on top of a unit is only approximately as risky as deep striking into difficult terrain without an invulnerable save. Death due to Dangerous Terrain: 1 in 6. Destruction due to placement on enemy model: 13%. (Only 1 in 3 mishaps is immediately fatal).

Disclaimer: Please take two pinches of salt when viewing these statistics because I can't remember how long the flame template is at the moment, and I'm not double checking my work. I merely wish to point out that the idea of deep striking flamers on top of an enemy unit is interesting and not necessarily a foolish idea.

Some other not scientificall done maths, but the numbers aren't actually that bad.

ChrisCP wrote:
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.

Greenblowfly wrote:The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand.

Simple and easy it may be, but this assumption is 100% incorrect. If impassable terrain is "not on the table", then when my skimmer lands on top of impassable terrain, it is not on the table? Therefore, it cannot be targeted for shooting or count for scoring. Good to know.

BRB:

"A skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain" pg 71.

So if your assumption is correct and a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain, it would not longer be on the table.

It's really a VERY simple abstraction to know what "on the table" means. The deepstrike rules state anywhere on the table. In this situation the rule is not referring to the actual physical plane of the battlefield, meaning you must set it literally "on the table". In this case it means anywhere within the field of play. Now, before you say "oh well then I will deploy 15 inches above the table!", this is obviously not legal. There are two cases that result from placing deepstriking units on other units.

1. A hit or short scatter is rolled and a mishap occurs. Normal units roll the mishap table, and do not actually land on other units. The Mawlocs damages the unit with the survivors being moved out of the way.

2. A long scatter is rolled and the unit is placed as normal.

Neither of these cases requires the mawloc or any units actually be placed on top of other models.

The whole point of the mawloc is that it erupts from underneath to devour those units above it, not so that it will occasionally damage units it accidently comes up under. The mawloc is SUPPOSED to burrow underneath units.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand.

Since you are still basing the core of your argument on this (or so it seems) I will repost what I did in the other tread for consistency.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:No what the rule says is place the model on the table.

G

EXACTLY!, NOT enemy models, NOT hills, NOT on the base of an area terrain piece, NOT on the felt game mat, ONLY on the table...

If you aren't playing on something that can be called a table, you can't deep strike at all obviously.

First I'll reiterate that the odds are you'll suffer a mishap if you place a unit on top of another unit. Consider a squad of three deep striking Chaos terminators... 40 mm is equal to 1.4", so the footprint is 4.2" across the three models. There is 33% chance you'll roll a hit which will automatically result in a mishap. The average scatter is 7". For the sake of this example suppose you place the terminators on top and centered on a squad of 10 Marines each 1" apart. If you scatter 7" or less you will suffer a mishap, in fact you could actually scatter more and suffer a mishap.

If GW intended for you to be able to place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit then the Terror from the Deep rule would have said as much.

G

Not if they thought it was so obvious that it didn't need mentioning. Or if it had been ruled the other way before, like with spore mines. Oh wait. . .


If it was supposed to only happen accidentally, then the rule would be called "Oh crap, what is this stuff over my head? Oh well, I'll surface anyway"

It's not called that, it's called "Terror from the Deep"

The mawloc has rules to reburrow, because the only real perk to taking him is his bursting from the ground power.

Also, you did not address my skimmer argument, which pretty much destroys the crux of yours. So you should do that.

Your skimmer argument does not pass the validity test so why bother? Basically you are advocating for Rules as I Want Them To Be (RAIWTTB).

G

IMO the Mawloc is meant to work the same way as Spore Mines. Put the marker/model over the enemy unit as you wish.

So wait.. your saying you cant pick a stop on the table that is occupied by something else?

Rules as I Want Them to be (RAIWTTB).

If that's the case then GW can sort it when theY release the FAQ.

G
.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Your skimmer argument does not pass the validity test so why bother? Basically you are advocating for Rules as I Want Them To Be (RAIWTTB).

G

Kinda, since RAIWTTB just happens to be RAW, where as RAWWTTB (rules as whiners want them to be) often aren't.

Also, do tell, how does my skimmer argument not pass the validity test?

Your main argument is that you cannot place over enemy models for this reason, even though deepstriking states "anywhere":

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table

However, skimmers routinely end their movement over impassable terrain. So if this is not "on the table" how do skimmers land there?

It's convenient that my argument, which completely leaves you with no RAW leg to stand on, doesn't pass the mystical "validity test".

So please, do tell me where this example breaks down? Because really, YOUR argument doesn't pass the validity test, but I still took the time to tell you why

You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

G

In that case, if the Mawloc was a skimmer it could deepstrike over enemy units. lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
See, the problem isn't that the argument doesn't hold up to the mawloc example, it just breaks down because of skimmers. If models that were over impassable terrain were not "on the table", then skimmers that end up on impassable terrain would not be "on the table".

Goddammit, this is a tricky subject :-) GBF, do you consider "on top of _passable_ terrain" to be "on table"? Because I really believe it is. And if that is, then I believe "on top of impassable terrain" is also on the table. It might be a place on the table where only skimmers and jump infantry can be placed, but I still think it is "on the table". I understand that you do not reason the way I do, so perhaps you could explain your view to me? I'd really like to understand, because this is just the way I've been doing things for years, so I might well have missed something :-)

And I am also curious about how a deepstriking skimmer or jump infantry could be placed. Could I put it on top of impassable terrain with the deepstrike? Would it be "on the table" then? I would certainly have to roll dangerous terrain tests...

Have you EVER seen anyone place a squad of terminators on top of an enemy unit when deep striking? I really am looking forward to reading the gak reasons why people supposedly did.

G

Terminators don't have a special rule that destroys whatever they land on, back to your apples and my oranges.

Not really and it's obvious you are not following all the pertinent discussions related to this subject.

G

The thing is, just because you might not have a reason to do so, does not mean that they cannot do it, which is what GBF seems to be arguing, despite Spore Mines and Monoliths doing so (and having a reason to) for years now.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Have you EVER seen anyone place a squad of terminators on top of an enemy unit when deep striking? I really am looking forward to reading the gak reasons why people supposedly did.

G

Wow. Really? . . . ok . . .

So we aren't really arguing rules anymore, should this be moved to the 40k tactics forum?

To answer your question: Of course not. However, if there were a case that it was tactically advantageous for a unit of terminators to deepstrike onto an enemy unit, I'm sure I would have seen that. Best case scenario when deepstriking termies onto an enemy is that they scatter off. More than likely you will lose that 200+ pts unit. Does this mean it is against the rules? No. It just means it is against the better senses of those who deepstrike terminators.


Seriously, what possible relevance could your post have to this argument.

Deep striking, according to GBF.
1. Units can only DS onto impassable terrain if they are skimmers, because skimmers say they can move onto impassable terrain.
2. Units must DS onto the table. They may not DS anywhere else (this includes the grass, your base, area terrain bases, etc.).

GBF, don't dismiss arguments with "apples to oranges" and "doesn't pass the validity test". Actually create proof.
A good argument only knocks down an opposing statement with contradicting proof. You are knocking down an argument with dismissal. This results in the argument being continually presented.

Haven't followed all the many threads on the Mawloc because they were too tedious.

In my interpretation the Terror From The Deep rule is to allow the Mawloc to 'deep strike' right on an enemy unit, representing the emergence of the monstrous creature literally under the target's feet, causing much grimdarkness and gnashing of teeth. This is exactly the way a 40K codex designer's mind works.

Also, my interpretation of 'on the table' is that the unit is not placed off the table, meaning outside the boundary of the playing area.

Kilkrazy wrote:Haven't followed all the many threads on the Mawloc because they were too tedious.

In my interpretation the Terror From The Deep rule is to allow the Mawloc to 'deep strike' right on an enemy unit, representing the emergence of the monstrous creature literally under the target's feet, causing much grimdarkness and gnashing of teeth. This is exactly the way a 40K codex designer's mind works.

Also, my interpretation of 'on the table' is that the unit is not placed off the table, meaning outside the boundary of the playing area.

As most sane rational people would interpret the rule, yes.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not really and it's obvious you are not following all the pertinent discussions related to this subject.

G

Unfortunately no. So many threads have been cross-pollinated it's impossible to follow all of the discussions related to the subject. I'd also like to thank the previous few posters for saying what I was too lazy to say.

Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not really and it's obvious you are not following all the pertinent discussions related to this subject.

G

Wow talk about a typical illogical argument... You don't agree with me so therefore your proof (which by the way I have shown none of supporting my argument) is not pertinent.

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

I don't see any side winning anything.

mikhaila wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

I don't see any side winning anything.

Maybe you didn't notice, but GBF's last argument was:

"Hey, if terminators never do it, why should the Mawloc?"


. . . newsflash, that's a lost argument.

EDIT: BRB job interview.

[thread]

apwill4765 wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

I don't see any side winning anything.

Maybe you didn't notice, but GBF's last argument was:

"Hey, if terminators never do it, why should the Mawloc?"


. . . newsflash, that's a lost argument.

EDIT: BRB job interview.

[/thread]

The poll option A is only ahead by 20 percent. It's just these people are very vocal. The rules regarding deep strike are simple and very easy to understand. Option A is RAIWITB.

G

Hmm, Considering we have not one, but TWO current threads whining about this, with both OP's not agreeing to the RaW answer as given by the INAT...

yeah, we are sooooo very vocal...

Green Blow Fly wrote:The poll option A is only ahead by 20 percent. It's just these people are very vocal. The rules regarding deep strike are simple and very easy to understand. Option A is RAIWITB.

G

But you have no argument that has not been invalidated. Also, no other argument other people have posted you have responded to.

The Poll Option A has the advantage of an absolute majority of player supporting it.

Steve, I really think GW thought it was obvious. This is what the Mawloc is meant to do. And they thought the precedent of the Spore Mine would mean everyone would know right way that this is the idea.

It could be clearer, and I know it discomfits a lot of people as it's not the way previous DSing stuff (with the notable exceptions of Spore Mines and the Monolith) tended to work, but it really looks like this is how it works.

Green Blow Fly wrote:First I'll reiterate that the odds are you'll suffer a mishap if you place a unit on top of another unit. Consider a squad of three deep striking Chaos terminators... 40 mm is equal to 1.4", so the footprint is 4.2" across the three models. There is 33% chance you'll roll a hit which will automatically result in a mishap. The average scatter is 7". For the sake of this example suppose you place the terminators on top and centered on a squad of 10 Marines each 1" apart. If you scatter 7" or less you will suffer a mishap, in fact you could actually scatter more and suffer a mishap.

No, you are doing the figuring incorrectly to bias the conclusion to support your conclusion. In deep striking, the other models can be positioned to minimize the necessary distance, and it's equally plausible that a player would not choose the point inside the enemy unit which would minimize the odds of avoiding a mishap.

More importantly, a 40mm base doesn't need to move 40mm to clear a 25mm base, but rather only 32.5mm because the initial model only has to move across half the foot print in order to clear the obstacle. More importantly, the other models in the unit are placed as desired, so the other two models in a three model terminator squad can be ignored for purposes of the foot print in almost every case.

So according to the odds, a terminator model will in fact scatter out of mishap range more often than not if placed on top of a single enemy model, and only have an approximately 1 in 9 (or 1 in 8 to be generous) chance of destruction by mishap.

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, Considering we have not one, but TWO current threads whining about this, with both OP's not agreeing to the RaW answer as given by the INAT...

yeah, we are sooooo very vocal...

RAW answer? What answer and how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was RAW? If you have decisive evidence, please explain and end these three threads of bickering.

Pika_power wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, Considering we have not one, but TWO current threads whining about this, with both OP's not agreeing to the RaW answer as given by the INAT...

yeah, we are sooooo very vocal...

RAW answer? What answer and how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was RAW? If you have decisive evidence, please explain and end these three threads of bickering.

Read anywhere on any of the first pages of the three threads for a RaW answer.


See what I did there?

Green Blow Fly wrote:
So in conclusion my interpration is that you cannot initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit when deep striking.

G

So this ruling is RAW, or are you implying in a roundabout way that there is no RAW here?

Pika_power wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
So in conclusion my interpration is that you cannot initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit when deep striking.

G

So this ruling is RAW, or are you implying in a roundabout way that there is no RAW here?

. . . guys, he didn't see what I did there.

No, I missed it.

Do it again?

Pika_power wrote:No, I missed it.

Do it again?

Just look ANYWHERE in the other threads on the subject, and you will find the RaW answer. Remember, look ANYWHERE

Pika_power wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
So in conclusion my interpration is that you cannot initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit when deep striking.

G

So this ruling is RAW, or are you implying in a roundabout way that there is no RAW here?

Look ANYWHERE else.

Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

muwhe wrote:Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

It's pretty cut and dry for those of us who don't face a tyranid meta game . It's weird, but it seems like people who face tyranids ignore raw to avoid facing the mawloc

White Dwarf is notorious for playing games wrongly and against RAW and FAQs.

muwhe wrote:Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

Read the battle report for Space Wolves and see if you want to let my Mark of the Wulfen character have extra rending thunderhammer attacks.

Pika_power wrote:White Dwarf is notorious for playing games wrongly and against RAW and FAQs.

But it was written by Cruddence. Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it.

Who it was written by means nothing. The author of the Chaos codex said Lash meant max distance/no put into a group when at a convention. We all know how that turned out.

Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

I feel special!

I'm just waiting for the first titan killed by a mawloc.... yes that ant, can't, move a rubber tree plant....

agnosto wrote:I'm just waiting for the first titan killed by a mawloc.... yes that ant, can't, move a rubber tree plant....

Holy crap, yes, Mawloc has apple pie in the sky hopes!

PS, ty for the pickmeup, because I just horrifically bombed a job interview. They asked me what I did in my spare time to unwind, and I mentioned this hobby. Ugh. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a side note i still don't know how to answer that in a relevant and meaningful way.

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

So by that logic, I have proof that my SW character can indeed use his Mark of the Wulfen to increase his Thunderhammer attacks and make then rending as well?

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

So by that logic, I have proof that my SW character can indeed use his Mark of the Wulfen to increase his Thunderhammer attacks and make then rending as well?

No, bro ram, the proof isn't the example. I just said the proof was provided previously (ooo) and these examples just back it up. The wulfen thing backs up nothing, because the RAW breaks down in the first place. Just because WD gets it wrong SOMETIMES, doesn't mean they get it wrong EVERY time.

apwill4765 wrote:

agnosto wrote:I'm just waiting for the first titan killed by a mawloc.... yes that ant, can't, move a rubber tree plant....

Holy crap, yes, Mawloc has apple pie in the sky hopes!

PS, ty for the pickmeup, because I just horrifically bombed a job interview. They asked me what I did in my spare time to unwind, and I mentioned this hobby. Ugh. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a side note i still don't know how to answer that in a relevant and meaningful way.

You interviewed at GW? J/K. Good luck in the future, the job market the way it is, we all need some luck.

I'm thinking of playing tyranids just so I can ruin some player's day when my 200point model offs his titan.... you gotta admit it'd be funny.

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

C'mon man, anywhere, as in, during deepstrike the model may be placed anywhere on the table.

It was a subtle and humorous reference to the only sentence that has ever really mattered in this whole darn mess of a RAW argument.

apwill4765 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

So by that logic, I have proof that my SW character can indeed use his Mark of the Wulfen to increase his Thunderhammer attacks and make then rending as well?

No, bro ram, the proof isn't the example. I just said the proof was provided previously (ooo) and these examples just back it up. The wulfen thing backs up nothing, because the RAW breaks down in the first place. Just because WD gets it wrong SOMETIMES, doesn't mean they get it wrong EVERY time.

But your using it as an example of your proof. I mean I can yank some of my HAIR out and present it as an example as proof of Bigfoot, but that doesn't make it so.

Edit: Family friendly, folks.

Ah. Is it too late for me to feel intelligent for getting the joke?

Anyway, my models' heads=//=the table.

@apwill,
are we going to start the whole "anywhere" vs. "table" thing again? The problem is that RAW aren't clear enough because the "table" was never defined so we all have our opinion of what the "table" is; to you the "table" includes anything anywhere near the surface of some object with 4 legs (including my hand, I guess); whereas I interpret the table as the battlefield and my models have no relation to the "ground" they're running on.

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

apwill4765 wrote:BRB:

"A skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain" pg 71.

So if your assumption is correct and a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain, it would not longer be on the table.

It's really a VERY simple abstraction to know what "on the table" means. The deepstrike rules state anywhere on the table. In this situation the rule is not referring to the actual physical plane of the battlefield, meaning you must set it literally "on the table". In this case it means anywhere within the field of play. Now, before you say "oh well then I will deploy 15 inches above the table!", this is obviously not legal. There are two cases that result from placing deepstriking units on other units.

1. A hit or short scatter is rolled and a mishap occurs. Normal units roll the mishap table, and do not actually land on other units. The Mawlocs damages the unit with the survivors being moved out of the way.

2. A long scatter is rolled and the unit is placed as normal.

Neither of these cases requires the mawloc or any units actually be placed on top of other models.

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, just because you might not have a reason to do so, does not mean that they cannot do it, which is what GBF seems to be arguing, despite Spore Mines and Monoliths doing so (and having a reason to) for years now.

apwill4765 wrote:Maybe you didn't notice, but GBF's last argument was:

"Hey, if terminators never do it, why should the Mawloc?"

Klawz wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The poll option A is only ahead by 20 percent. It's just these people are very vocal. The rules regarding deep strike are simple and very easy to understand. Option A is RAIWITB.

G

But you have no argument that has not been invalidated. Also, no other argument other people have posted you have responded to.

Mannahnin wrote:Steve, I really think GW thought it was obvious. This is what the Mawloc is meant to do. And they thought the precedent of the Spore Mine would mean everyone would know right way that this is the idea.

It could be clearer, and I know it discomfits a lot of people as it's not the way previous DSing stuff (with the notable exceptions of Spore Mines and the Monolith) tended to work, but it really looks like this is how it works.

Happy?

apwill4765 wrote:

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

C'mon man, anywhere, as in, during deepstrike the model may be placed anywhere on the table.

It was a subtle and humorous reference to the only sentence that has ever really mattered in this whole darn mess of a RAW argument.

I fully agree that anywhere is clearly noted in the Deep Strike rules in the BrB. And that would be fine and dandy if that was the only section in which you looked to determine Deep Strike. However it isn't,

Deep Strike----->Reserves------>Movement Phase

That is the path a player must take in order to Deep Strike. Each one of those steps refines how you Deep Strike. You can throw out the term ANYWHERE all you want as RAW, but you would then be showing that you are locked into a tunnel vision view of the rule so that it works out the way you want.

Pika_power wrote:Anyway, my models' heads=//=the table.

Neither is a hill!

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

C'mon man, anywhere, as in, during deepstrike the model may be placed anywhere on the table.

It was a subtle and humorous reference to the only sentence that has ever really mattered in this whole darn mess of a RAW argument.

I fully agree that anywhere is clearly noted in the Deep Strike rules in the BrB. And that would be fine and dandy if that was the only section in which you looked to determine Deep Strike. However it isn't,

Deep Strike----->Reserves------>Movement Phase

That is the path a player must take in order to Deep Strike. Each one of those steps refines how you Deep Strike. You can throw out the term ANYWHERE all you want as RAW, but you would then be showing that you are locked into a tunnel vision view of the rule so that it works out the way you want.

Anywhere is pretty much the opposite of tunnel vision. The whole argument is right there. It's placed anywhere. Not, anywhere it could normally be placed. See how that would be "anywhere" with limiting qualifications, and therefore not "anywhere". It doesn't say that, it says "anywhere".

And when they say "anywhere" they really really mean "anywhere". I promise.

I don't know how to break it down further when we are talking about one word.

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

Hello people! Giant wall of text, hello!

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written

ANYWHERE


can we lock this thread too, these arguements are pointless and circular.

Gee my hand just took a S6 AP2 hit.

So if I pick my models up, nothing in the rules to say I can't, during your phase, you can't shoot them or DS on them.

LOL. Geez.

agnosto wrote:Gee my hand just took a S6 AP2 hit.

So if I pick my models up, nothing in the rules to say I can't, during your phase, you can't shoot them or DS on them.

LOL. Geez.

What the heck are you talking about? How do you get from the RAW to whatever you're spouting.

apwill4765 wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

You are only quoting PART of the rules and as I pointed out, you are locked in on anywhere from the Deep Strike rules when I clearly pointed out per RAW that the Deep Strike rules are not the only rules you have to look at when you Deep Strike. Sure you are quoting ANYWHERE with all your might, but then are totally disregarding the rules for Reserves and Movement Phase, both of which are part of the Deep Strike process.

Yes. I'm disregarding them because deepstrike overrules them, by saying i can place my model anywhere.

Similarly, when I deploy my Mawloc on top of your models, I ignore the mishap rules even though I'm deepstriking, because Mawloc's rules override the mishap rules.

Anywhere overrides impassable terrain
Mawloc overrides mishap table

Get it?

There is nothing in the deep strike rules specifying that it disregards the basic rules.

Please follow the tenents of YMDC, or don't post.

A White Dwarf batrep...

































HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

muwhe wrote:Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

Bla_Ze wrote:There is nothing in the deep strike rules specifying that it disregards the basic rules.

Please follow the tenents of YMDC, or don't post.

Except the part where it specifically tells you you may place your models anywhere on the board. And the only one here who hasn't provided a RAW argument is you, so maybe you should try heeding your own advice.

Sorry i know this is the wrong place but anyway,

I have heard Space marine veterans MKII are illegal but i then also heard that if you throw in a sarge they make a legal squad can anyone confirm this for me..


Thanks

COURAGE AND HONOUR!

You are correct this is the wrong place. Make a separate thread for it.

I don't even understand the question...

ye but can you tell me.......

Deathuponthetainted wrote:ye but can you tell me.......

No, mainly because I cannot make heads nor tails of what you are trying to ask.

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

You are only quoting PART of the rules and as I pointed out, you are locked in on anywhere from the Deep Strike rules when I clearly pointed out per RAW that the Deep Strike rules are not the only rules you have to look at when you Deep Strike. Sure you are quoting ANYWHERE with all your might, but then are totally disregarding the rules for Reserves and Movement Phase, both of which are part of the Deep Strike process.

Hmm, I really wish I had my rulebook with me now, cause this just doesn't read right. I would think that the Reserves rules are only part of the 'Deep Strike process', whatever that is, insofar as to say that certain models, when held in Reserve may Deep Strike. At which point you follow all of the rules for Deep Strike. I'm not sure how you intended the Reserves rules to somehow preclude one from DS'ing onto an enemy unit/model.

I'm also not sure where you're going with referencing the Movement phase. Yes, deep strike does occur during the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does have rules pertaining to impassible terrain, not moving within 1'', etc. All of these are true. Deep Strike however, is a very specific rule mechanic that overrules these general Movement restrictions. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, 'anywhere' truly does mean 'anywhere', and it really is that important! There are no subsequent restrictions such as, 'per the usual model placement rules laid out in the Movement phase section of the rulebook'.

Just curious, does everyone here agree that a Monolith can deep strike directly onto an enemy model/unit? By directly, I don't mean hoping for a good scatter, I mean holding the Monolith directly over an enemy unit/model and hoping for a hit or small scatter. If so, what's the difference between this and the Mawloc? There really is no difference.

While it may be tactically stupid to deep strike directly onto an enemy unit/model, there are exceptions to this. Not only do the current incarnation of the rules allow for this, but we have clearly established precedent allowing it. How you and Bla_Ze can continue to insist otherwise is...odd.

-Yad

They are terrified of Terror From the Deep.

Becuase its not a movement restriction? Its just a general terrain rule.

We are talking RAW here, and nothing actually say deep striking ignores the normal rules, "anywhere" does not prove anything.

Edit:

They are terrified of Terror From the Deep.

wut? I don't see this as having any relevance, both me and my group plays it that you can place it "anywhere".

Bla_Ze FTW.

G

Pika_power wrote:White Dwarf is notorious for playing games wrongly and against RAW and FAQs.

He was not referring to RAW in saying read the WD he was saying the author of the codex was playing it the way he intended it to be played. He was talking about RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It does strike me a funny that these same vocal people have not said a word when the the necron player has been DSing his monoliths straight on to models for years. It strikes me as very telling that the anti RAI crowd has to argue that anywhere does not mean anywhere and wants a firm defining of "table". lol!

If that's his intent then their FAQ will say so. Care to make a wager?

G

Bla_Ze wrote:Becuase its not a movement restriction? Its just a general terrain rule.

We are talking RAW here, and nothing actually say deep striking ignores the normal rules, "anywhere" does not prove anything.

How can a rule saying that I can't enter impassible terrain be anything other than a restriction on Movement?

I do think that Deep Striking is a form of Movement and as such should adhere to all relevant movement rules (and restrictions). Because the DS rule mechanic allows you to place anywhere on the table, it creates an exception to all of those restrictions. It is complete cognitive dissonance for you to insist that the Mawloc cannot do this while maintaining that the Monolith can. Unless of course, you don't think the Monolith can DS onto enemy units/models. Or for that matter no models can do so. At which point I'd give you props for being consistently wrong.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:

No becuase RAW does not equal your assumptions.

In fact NOTHING in your post, shows any indication of any rule as written.

Good argument. Oh wait there isn't one here, just a facepalm.

I'm quoting the rules directly from the book as they are written. How is that not an argument based on RAW, when the only thing I'm using for my argument are the rules as written? I feel like I've landed in crazy town, and im only reassured by the fact that 60 % of dakka agrees with the correct interpretation as per yakface's thread.

You are only quoting PART of the rules and as I pointed out, you are locked in on anywhere from the Deep Strike rules when I clearly pointed out per RAW that the Deep Strike rules are not the only rules you have to look at when you Deep Strike. Sure you are quoting ANYWHERE with all your might, but then are totally disregarding the rules for Reserves and Movement Phase, both of which are part of the Deep Strike process.

Hmm, I really wish I had my rulebook with me now, cause this just doesn't read right. I would think that the Reserves rules are only part of the 'Deep Strike process', whatever that is, insofar as to say that certain models, when held in Reserve may Deep Strike. At which point you follow all of the rules for Deep Strike. I'm not sure how you intended the Reserves rules to somehow preclude one from DS'ing onto an enemy unit/model.

I'm also not sure where you're going with referencing the Movement phase. Yes, deep strike does occur during the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does have rules pertaining to impassible terrain, not moving within 1'', etc. All of these are true. Deep Strike however, is a very specific rule mechanic that overrules these general Movement restrictions. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, 'anywhere' truly does mean 'anywhere', and it really is that important! There are no subsequent restrictions such as, 'per the usual model placement rules laid out in the Movement phase section of the rulebook'.

Just curious, does everyone here agree that a Monolith can deep strike directly onto an enemy model/unit? By directly, I don't mean hoping for a good scatter, I mean holding the Monolith directly over an enemy unit/model and hoping for a hit or small scatter. If so, what's the difference between this and the Mawloc? There really is no difference.

While it may be tactically stupid to deep strike directly onto an enemy unit/model, there are exceptions to this. Not only do the current incarnation of the rules allow for this, but we have clearly established precedent allowing it. How you and Bla_Ze can continue to insist otherwise is...odd.

-Yad

Without Reserves or the Movement Phase, you cannot Deep Strike. That is why I listed them as the path needed to Deep Strike.

To keep screaming out anywhere, anywhere, anywhere is not following RAW. The Deep Strike rule, on its own, is unplayable. Please, tell me how you can Deep Strike without having the Reserves or the Movement Phase? Reserves tells you how/when and Movement tells you how/when. They refine how Deep Strike is used so that it is playable.

To say that ANYWHERE is the override is wrong since the rule does not end with Deep Strike and ANYWHERE. It is overridden by whatever may be in the Reserve rules and then overridden by whatever is in the Movement Phase, including on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Steve, a beer says that when GW eventually FAQs it, IF they say anything at all, they will rule that Mawlocs can strike right onto enemy units.

how about a bottle of vodka?



G

Brother Ramses, bear in mind that 40k is a game in which special rules make specific-case exceptions to general rules.

While Deep Striking does work hand-in-hand with most Reserve and Movement phase rules, the statement that you can place the model anywhere on the table may well be intended as an exception to the 1" rule and the Impassible terrain rules. It could certainly be more explicit, but I believe the preponderence of the evidence leans more toward the "Mawloc can try to DS right onto my units" side.

And I'm happy to make the same wager with you that I've made with GBF, assuming we'll be at a GT together this year or next where one of us can buy the other a beer.

Steve- could do. I usually like a drink as a wager, but if you'd prefer a bottle, I could do that. Any preference?

If you all are right, it just boggles me why GW would make something so completely OP. I mean for 200 pts you get something that eats HQ units or anything that doesn't have an invulnerable save. It even potentially kills tanks, transports, super heavies and titans.

Warmachine's looking better and better each day.

Just a 1/3 chance of a HIT. If you're up against it, I recommend keeping your more expensive stuff buttoned up in transports, and killing the thing ASAP when it surfaces.

The odds of killing stuff like Land Raiders and titans are remote and require extremely ideal and unlikely conditions.

I play tau, it'll eat my tanks and transports just as easily as my troops.

I don't have anything with greater than a rear armor 10.

Ragnar I'll bring a bottle of raspberry Absolut.

G

Brother Ramses wrote:

Without Reserves or the Movement Phase, you cannot Deep Strike. That is why I listed them as the path needed to Deep Strike.

To keep screaming out anywhere, anywhere, anywhere is not following RAW. The Deep Strike rule, on its own, is unplayable. Please, tell me how you can Deep Strike without having the Reserves or the Movement Phase? Reserves tells you how/when and Movement tells you how/when. They refine how Deep Strike is used so that it is playable.

To say that ANYWHERE is the override is wrong since the rule does not end with Deep Strike and ANYWHERE. It is overridden by whatever may be in the Reserve rules and then overridden by whatever is in the Movement Phase, including on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Are you seriously denying that the exact wording of the Deep Strike rule does not include a sentence that reads, "...place the model anywhere on the table..."? I'll presume not. The crux of your argument seems to me that this rule doesn't say, or at the very least, imply what it seems to. You hold that models/units that deep strike must adhere to the Movement restrictions found in the Movement phase of the rulebook. If there were any further restrictions placed upon where you may deep strike within the deep strike rule mechanic I would be inclined to agree with you. But there is none. The general Movement rule restrictions do not override the specifics found within the deep strike rule mechanic.

-Yad

Like a virgin...

Or some Espresso Vodka.

Mannahnin wrote:Brother Ramses, bear in mind that 40k is a game in which special rules make specific-case exceptions to general rules.

While Deep Striking does work hand-in-hand with most Reserve and Movement phase rules, the statement that you can place the model anywhere on the table may well be intended as an exception to the 1" rule and the Impassible terrain rules. It could certainly be more explicit, but I believe the preponderence of the evidence leans more toward the "Mawloc can try to DS right onto my units" side.

And I'm happy to make the same wager with you that I've made with GBF, assuming we'll be at a GT together this year or next where one of us can buy the other a beer.

Steve- could do. I usually like a drink as a wager, but if you'd prefer a bottle, I could do that. Any preference?

Deep Strike ONLY works with Reserves and the Movement Phase. To say it works hand in hand would stipulate an equal workload. Reserves works without Deep Strike and the Movement Phase works without Deep Strike. Deep Strike is wholly dependent on both to operate within the game rules and environment.

So while I do agree that there are cases where special rules give case-exceptions, in this case you have a rule (Deep Strike) wholly dependent on two other rules and therefore must follow the tenets of those rules as well. To say that ANYWHERE dictates you then forget the other two rules that cause Deep Strike to function despite them being the only possible ways for the rule to function seems kinda obtuse.

I see it as that you can indeed Deep Strike anywhere on the table, with exception to the basic tenets of the Reserves and the Movement Phase, of which Deep Strike is impossible without. That is much more RAW then just continually shouting out ANYWHERE.

!I'm truly impressed.

G

Brother Ramses wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Brother Ramses, bear in mind that 40k is a game in which special rules make specific-case exceptions to general rules.

While Deep Striking does work hand-in-hand with most Reserve and Movement phase rules, the statement that you can place the model anywhere on the table may well be intended as an exception to the 1" rule and the Impassible terrain rules. It could certainly be more explicit, but I believe the preponderence of the evidence leans more toward the "Mawloc can try to DS right onto my units" side.

And I'm happy to make the same wager with you that I've made with GBF, assuming we'll be at a GT together this year or next where one of us can buy the other a beer.

Steve- could do. I usually like a drink as a wager, but if you'd prefer a bottle, I could do that. Any preference?

Deep Strike ONLY works with Reserves and the Movement Phase. To say it works hand in hand would stipulate an equal workload. Reserves works without Deep Strike and the Movement Phase works without Deep Strike. Deep Strike is wholly dependent on both to operate within the game rules and environment.

So while I do agree that there are cases where special rules give case-exceptions, in this case you have a rule (Deep Strike) wholly dependent on two other rules and therefore must follow the tenets of those rules as well. To say that ANYWHERE dictates you then forget the other two rules that cause Deep Strike to function despite them being the only possible ways for the rule to function seems kinda obtuse.

I see it as that you can indeed Deep Strike anywhere on the table, with exception to the basic tenets of the Reserves and the Movement Phase, of which Deep Strike is impossible without. That is much more RAW then just continually shouting out ANYWHERE.

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. The general Movement phase restrictions do not override the Deep Strike model placement rule. You are in effect inserting your own language into the Deep Strike rule mechanic.

"...place the model anywhere, subject to the usual movement restrictions found in the Movement section of the rulebook, on the table..."

-Yad

Gwar! wrote:The thing is, just because you might not have a reason to do so, does not mean that they cannot do it, which is what GBF seems to be arguing, despite Spore Mines and Monoliths doing so (and having a reason to) for years now.

Why on earth would anyone want to DS a monolith in 5th Ed?

Andrew

Well, I have two mawlocs assembled and painted, and IF GW FAQs that they cannot target a unit for their ability that coincidentally occurs prior to placing the mawloc's model, then I will gladly give them away as the worst points anybody could ever spend in the 'nid codex. I only say prior because it goes over how a large blast template is placed that hits for str6 ap2. Then Models are moved out of the way so the mawloc can be placed.

I'm fairly new to these forums, but I have to ask, when the IG 'dex came out, did people whine about alpha strike gunlines this much? Because it seems to me that GW just has come up with a way to discourage people from deploying in castled-up firebases. But that is just a newcomers perspective.

Yad wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Brother Ramses, bear in mind that 40k is a game in which special rules make specific-case exceptions to general rules.

While Deep Striking does work hand-in-hand with most Reserve and Movement phase rules, the statement that you can place the model anywhere on the table may well be intended as an exception to the 1" rule and the Impassible terrain rules. It could certainly be more explicit, but I believe the preponderence of the evidence leans more toward the "Mawloc can try to DS right onto my units" side.

And I'm happy to make the same wager with you that I've made with GBF, assuming we'll be at a GT together this year or next where one of us can buy the other a beer.

Steve- could do. I usually like a drink as a wager, but if you'd prefer a bottle, I could do that. Any preference?

Deep Strike ONLY works with Reserves and the Movement Phase. To say it works hand in hand would stipulate an equal workload. Reserves works without Deep Strike and the Movement Phase works without Deep Strike. Deep Strike is wholly dependent on both to operate within the game rules and environment.

So while I do agree that there are cases where special rules give case-exceptions, in this case you have a rule (Deep Strike) wholly dependent on two other rules and therefore must follow the tenets of those rules as well. To say that ANYWHERE dictates you then forget the other two rules that cause Deep Strike to function despite them being the only possible ways for the rule to function seems kinda obtuse.

I see it as that you can indeed Deep Strike anywhere on the table, with exception to the basic tenets of the Reserves and the Movement Phase, of which Deep Strike is impossible without. That is much more RAW then just continually shouting out ANYWHERE.

You're coming at it from the wrong direction. The general Movement phase restrictions do not override the Deep Strike model placement rule. You are in effect inserting your own language into the Deep Strike rule mechanic.

"...place the model anywhere, subject to the usual movement restrictions found in the Movement section of the rulebook, on the table..."

-Yad

I am not inserting anything anywhere. Explain the process of Deep Striking to me then? At what point in your explanation are you NOT in the Movement Phase. So at what point are you then NOT subject to placing a model on or within 1"?

Sure, place your model anywhere, but remember you are Deep Striking in the Movement Phase and you cannot place your model on or within 1" of a model unless in the assault phase.

agnosto wrote:I play tau, it'll eat my tanks and transports just as easily as my troops.

I don't have anything with greater than a rear armor 10.

It can't assault on the turn it arrives and it has no ranged weapons. Tau have lots of ranged weapons. Move 12" away from it and use them on the Mawloc.

agnosto wrote:If you all are right, it just boggles me why GW would make something so completely OP. I mean for 200 pts you get something that eats HQ units or anything that doesn't have an invulnerable save. It even potentially kills tanks, transports, super heavies and titans.

If you think GW wouldn't release a unit that has the potential to absolutely slaughter models without invulnerable saves take a look at the Doom of Malan'tai. No armor save, no cover save because it's not a shooting attack. Just a straight up leadership test on 3d6 or things start dying. And it is even cheaper than the Mawloc and can do things the moment it arrives. It has the potential for a 48", S10 large blast, and unlike the Mawloc it has a BS score so it can reduce the scatter potential.

The Mawloc doesn't instantly destroy anything it comes up underneath. Things only get instantly destroyed if it is impossible to move them out from underneath the blast marker because of other models or terrain. Otherwise it is just a S6, AP2 hit that can only come up from reserves, can scatter and can't be used again the next turn, or ever if you tie the thing up in h2h.

I don't think it's as terrifying a unit as everyone makes it out to be. All it does is force you not to cluster up your guys in a super tight ball. If you are losing entire HQ squads and scores of tanks to a Mawloc you should look at how you are positioning your units.

Brother Ramses wrote:words

the part where Specific>general, and Deep strike is a specific special rule that specifically says you can place your models anywhere, compared to the general rule where you can generally only move within 1" in the assault phase.

Demogerg wrote:the part where Specific>general, and Deep strike is a specific special rule that specifically says you can place your models anywhere, compared to the general rule where you can generally only move within 1" in the assault phase.

Exactly.

The rules governing the entire movement phase are more general than the rules which apply only to deep strike.
Deep strike is a specific thing which falls under the general category of movement.

One of the basic things we need to do in order to make sense of the BRB and codices, is that specific rules take precedence over more general rules.

When the specific rule for deep strike says "anywhere", it technically contradicts the more general rules for movement.

Brother Ramses is trying to limit the specific rules' version of "anywhere" to restrict it to anywhere within the limitations of the more general movement rules - in effect trying to satisfy both rules as much as possible without breaking either.

On the other hand, I and many others, are resolving the conflict by recognising that a specific rules overrides a more general rule, and therefore that "anywhere" really does mean "anywhere". It overrides the more general rule, and is not bound by it.

Brother Ramses wrote:Sure, place your model anywhere, but remember you are Deep Striking in the Movement Phase and you cannot place your model on or within 1" of a model unless in the assault phase.

Things happen in the shooting phase that don't follow the rules of shooting. The Doom of Malan'Tai's ability is a perfect example. Things also happen in the movement phase that don't follow the rules of movement. Just because something occurs in a certain phase of a turn does not automatically imbue the rules for standard actions onto them.

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:words

the part where Specific>general, and Deep strike is a specific special rule that specifically says you can place your models anywhere, compared to the general rule where you can generally only move within 1" in the assault phase.

"Anywhere" is about the least specific word you could imagine.

PLease look at Sweeping Advance and ATSKNF for an example of what GW mean by specific. Hint: "Anywhere" is not nearly specific enough.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:words

the part where Specific>general, and Deep strike is a specific special rule that specifically says you can place your models anywhere, compared to the general rule where you can generally only move within 1" in the assault phase.

"Anywhere" is about the least specific word you could imagine.

PLease look at Sweeping Advance and ATSKNF for an example of what GW mean by specific. Hint: "Anywhere" is not nearly specific enough.

I don't believe Demogerg was specifically addressing the word anywhere, but rather the Deep Strike mechanic as a whole. That is, rules pertaining to the placement and movement of models within the Deep Strike mechanic, unless otherwise specified, override the restrictions found in the Movement section. But I'll leave to Demogreg to explain himself if he feels the need to

-Yad

Except they cannot do so, as they still require the movement phase rules to work.

They can work just fine. The deep striking models don't need to move after they are placed. The mishap table prevents any invalid situations from occurring, you don't need the movement rules to resolve the mishap table.

So can I shoot trygons and mawlocs with the sub-shell the thunderfire cannon shoots?

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:words

the part where Specific>general, and Deep strike is a specific special rule that specifically says you can place your models anywhere, compared to the general rule where you can generally only move within 1" in the assault phase.

"Anywhere" is about the least specific word you could imagine.

PLease look at Sweeping Advance and ATSKNF for an example of what GW mean by specific. Hint: "Anywhere" is not nearly specific enough.

I don't believe Demogerg was specifically addressing the word anywhere, but rather the Deep Strike mechanic as a whole. That is, rules pertaining to the placement and movement of models within the Deep Strike mechanic, unless otherwise specified, override the restrictions found in the Movement section. But I'll leave to Demogreg to explain himself if he feels the need to

-Yad

Yad's explation will suffice just fine.

Bro Ram wrote:I see it as that you can indeed Deep Strike anywhere on the table, with exception to the basic tenets of the Reserves and the Movement Phase, of which Deep Strike is impossible without. That is much more RAW then just continually shouting out ANYWHERE.

Actually, RAW means Rules As Written, not Rules as Wished.

For instance:

You WISH the rules said: "you can indeed Deep Strike anywhere on the table, with exception to the basic tenets of the Reserves and the Movement Phase, of which Deep Strike is impossible without."

The Rules ACTUALLY say: "the model is placed anywhere on the table."

The end.

Done.

Bye bye.

EDIT: And it doesn't matter how much wishing you and blaze and GBF do, the wording in the rulebook won't change.

apwill4765 wrote:
The Rules ACTUALLY say: "the model is placed anywhere on the table."

My model isn't the ta.....you know what, I'm tired; I'm going to go take a nap.

Please BR, Deep Strike any of your models without the Movement Phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:Please BR AND Apwil, Deep Strike any of your models without the Movement Phase.

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
The Rules ACTUALLY say: "the model is placed anywhere on the table."

My model isn't the ta.....you know what, I'm tired; I'm going to go take a nap.

Not considered part of 'on the table', right? Wrong. That's a slippery slope to run down. Where does that stop? Everything, the game table; the flock; the terrain; the models, are all 'on the table' and in play. All models/units must adhere to the movement restrictions put forth in the Movement section of the rules. Deep Striking models, skimmers, wraiths, all have their own exceptions to these restrictions.

Now, nobody is actually going to physically place a model on top of yours, so I wouldn't even consider that a feasible counter-argument. Do you allow the Monolith the deep strike directly into an enemy unit/model?

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they cannot do so, as they still require the movement phase rules to work.

Oh boy. No, it only requires the Movement Phase because that is when the Deep Strike is carried out. It doesn't need the Movement rules to 'work'.

We've run over this ground a dozen times now, and boy it's getting tiring. It may be time to close this thread until a ruling is made. I'll put up a sixpack that GW rules our way, though, since it's RaW.

Though I agree with you wholeheartedly yad

Brother Ramses wrote:Please BR, Deep Strike any of your models without the Movement Phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:Please BR AND Apwil, Deep Strike any of your models without the Movement Phase.

I never said you didn't Deep Strike in the Movement Phase. There is no argument that Deep Strike occurs at the beginning of the movement phase.

As I pointed out in an earlier post simply because events occur in a certain phase of the game does not mean that all the rules for a standard action in that turn apply to them and referred to the Doom of Malan'Tai Spirit Leech ability as an example.

I said that you do not need the standard movement rules to resolve a Deep Strike. They resolve just fine without them due to the inclusion of the mishap table.

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
The Rules ACTUALLY say: "the model is placed anywhere on the table."

My model isn't the ta.....you know what, I'm tired; I'm going to go take a nap.

Not considered part of 'on the table', right? Wrong. That's a slippery slope to run down. Where does that stop? Everything, the game table; the flock; the terrain; the models, are all 'on the table' and in play. All models/units must adhere to the movement restrictions put forth in the Movement section of the rules. Deep Striking models, skimmers, wraiths, all have their own exceptions to these restrictions.

Now, nobody is actually going to physically place a model on top of yours, so I wouldn't even consider that a feasible counter-argument. Do you allow the Monolith the deep strike directly into an enemy unit/model?

-Yad

Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

apwill4765 wrote:We've run over this ground a dozen times now, and boy it's getting tiring. It may be time to close this thread until a ruling is made. I'll put up a sixpack that GW rules our way, though, since it's RaW.

Though I agree with you wholeheartedly yad

I agree with you, however, its our Opinion that it is the RAW, there is a good deal of room for interpretation in these rules, which is why we have this arguement.

one side believes one thing, another side believes another thing.

the sad part about all of this is that GW will with almost a 99% certainty "fix" the problem with a FAQ and not an Errata, which is a shame because that will not change opinions, only create further animosity towards though who are in the minority.

agnosto wrote:

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:
The Rules ACTUALLY say: "the model is placed anywhere on the table."

My model isn't the ta.....you know what, I'm tired; I'm going to go take a nap.

Not considered part of 'on the table', right? Wrong. That's a slippery slope to run down. Where does that stop? Everything, the game table; the flock; the terrain; the models, are all 'on the table' and in play. All models/units must adhere to the movement restrictions put forth in the Movement section of the rules. Deep Striking models, skimmers, wraiths, all have their own exceptions to these restrictions.

Now, nobody is actually going to physically place a model on top of yours, so I wouldn't even consider that a feasible counter-argument. Do you allow the Monolith the deep strike directly into an enemy unit/model?

-Yad

Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I wouldn't consider the model part of the table, but the terrain/ground that they are standing on is.

So your argument isn't that the position he chose is invalid, it's that you are going to inflict violence upon them if he actually tries to physically place a Mawloc on top of your models?

For situations like these I suggest getting a coat hanger or something so you can make little removable legs for your trygon base. Then you can place it above models without physically touching them.

Then your modeling to advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And not using the base provided with the model.

Demogerg wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:We've run over this ground a dozen times now, and boy it's getting tiring. It may be time to close this thread until a ruling is made. I'll put up a sixpack that GW rules our way, though, since it's RaW.

Though I agree with you wholeheartedly yad

I agree with you, however, its our Opinion that it is the RAW, there is a good deal of room for interpretation in these rules, which is why we have this arguement.

one side believes one thing, another side believes another thing.

the sad part about all of this is that GW will with almost a 99% certainty "fix" the problem with a FAQ and not an Errata, which is a shame because that will not change opinions, only create further animosity towards though who are in the minority.

I agree to an extent, except that opinions are subjective and not necessarily subject to criteria that makes one opinion more right than another. A rules interpretation can be more correct based on the amount of evidence that exists to back up a certain interpretation. In this case, the correct interpretation is that the mawloc may deepstrike anywhere it pleases, including on top of enemy models. 60% of dakka agrees with this interpretation (for what that is worth), Gwar! agrees with this interpretation (for what that is worth), and the INAT FAQ agrees as well. I think we are definitely correct in this situation; opinions can't really claim to be "correct" because they are not objective.

Also, I feel no animosity toward those who think the opposite. I get a little heated because I like to argue, but it's nothing personal of course.

Brother Ramses wrote: Then your modeling to advantage.

agreed. which is a bad bad thing.

Brother Ramses wrote:

And not using the base provided with the model.

he would still be using the base, just the base wouldnt be touching the table, the legs would.

Last I checked, there wasn't a single coat hanger in any of the GW products I have bought.

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

I still wanna know if I can shoot a mawloc with the thunderfire cannon....it shoots underground after all...

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

They won't answer. That example and spore mines pretty much puts the whole thing to rest. People just don't want to play by RaW if it lets them avoid losing their plastic soldiers.

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

Unless the Monolith rules specifically say it is exempt from that aspect of the deep strike rules, no.

agnosto wrote:

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

Unless the Monolith rules specifically say it is exempt from that aspect of the deep strike rules, no.

Hey they don't. And neither do spore mines. Guess how GW ruled it though?

apwill4765 wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

Unless the Monolith rules specifically say it is exempt from that aspect of the deep strike rules, no.

Hey they don't. And neither do spore mines. Guess how GW ruled it though?

Eh, it's GW, they'll say anything to make a buck.

LoL. I'll give you that, but given that they are making the rules, I'd say that is how it should be played. . .

I have never played a Necron player that even tried to Deep Strike his Monolith on or within 1". Had I, I would come down on the same issue as Agnosto.

As for the Spore Mine issue, I have already addressed that in the other thread but will just touch on it now.

Since Spore Mines cannot Deep Strike into or within 1" of my models with the new codex, I see it as GW fixing that incorrect interpretation from 4th edition.

How the heck is the mawloc any different BR?

apwill4765 wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

Unless the Monolith rules specifically say it is exempt from that aspect of the deep strike rules, no.

Hey they don't. And neither do spore mines. Guess how GW ruled it though?

GW ruled that it was wrong. Proof being that in the NEW codex, Spore Mines are not allowed to deep strike on or within 1" of a model.

Brother Ramses wrote:Then your modeling to advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And not using the base provided with the model.

The legs would only come into action when you need to place a model on top of others in a way as to accurately present it's position without damaging the paint jobs of anything beneath it. When the model in question is actually in play the legs would be taken off and the model would sit normally on the table, thus garnering no gameplay advantage and no 'modeling to win'.

Would you seriously argue that someone was modelling for advantage if they placed a Mawloc on an open space, it scattered so it was covering a mess of troops and the player pulled out little legs for the base to stand on so he could accurately represent it's position post-scatter so it doesn't get 'moved around' when it would be taken away, the blast marker placed where it used to be, then the mawloc placed back again where it used to be? It confers no rules advantage and, if anything only serve to simplify the process and remove unintentional errors.

apwill4765 wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Yad wrote:

agnosto wrote:
Here's how I'll play it. I'll look at my opponent and say, "The rules say you can place your model anywhere on the table, now you might think that my model is part of the table but I want you to think it over very carefully while I shine my golden gloves pendant."

I've asked it a couple of times but have yet to get an actual answer. Do any of you allow Necron players to Deep Strike their Monolith directly on enemy units/models?

Not physically place it. Not target an exposed area close to an enemy unit/model and hope for a favorable scatter, but directly on the unit/model. I for one have always allowed a Necron player to Deep Strike into my units.

-Yad

Unless the Monolith rules specifically say it is exempt from that aspect of the deep strike rules, no.

Hey they don't. And neither do spore mines. Guess how GW ruled it though?

Yeah, but those are just house rules.

Enough of this. The subject has been played out totally.

Locking thread to avoid terminal boredom.