Awful lot of these qualifications that have huge ramifications on the rules segments they refer to are "redundant". Are you sure that they are redundant, or are they crucial to interpreting the rules; but because the interpretations hurt your argument, you toss them aside as redundant?

You said that if we were correct, then the assault rules would not have to specifically tell you that you may come within 1", because they don't tell you to follow the movement rules.

The problem is, they DO tell you to follow the movement rules.

But now that is a redundant qualification.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Otherwise "run" does not follow any rules about movement, as it does not specifically state it doesn't. Assault would not have to specifically state you can come within 1" of an enemy model as it is not the movement rules, and therefore that prohibition would not apply. Do you see where that goes? You are requiring that every rule specifically states it is inclusive of all rules that apply to it, otherwise they are not. This means that, as an example, "Lash of Submission" could move models out of coherency (FAQ not withstanding) as "move 2D6" does not reiterate that all normal movement rules apply.

I think you are missing a key point, Run, Assault, Etc are all normal rules, Deep Strike is a Special Rule (hence its location in the unit profiles, under special rules) and Special Rules supercede normal rules.

a Special Rule is more specific than a normal rule that applies to everything.

Lash of Submission is not a Special Rule its a psychic power that allows models to "move 2d6" with the assumption of normal movement rules.


And there is a reason I bolded Special rule if you don't know, can you figure out why?

Yes, because that is how the ruleset works. You do realise that *your* interpretation would require that every rule was of the following form:

"Special rule: do stuff! Note: this rule follows all the rules found in the BRB, except where they are specifically noted as being overidden"
?

Do you think that Run! allows you to move out of coherency? After all, nowhere in the rules for Run! does it state that you follow the rules for movement in the movement phase, so therefore it doesnt. Ooh! it ALSO lets you move any unit into impassable terrain - after all it doesnt say that you have to follow the rules on page 14!

See where this leads?

Also, because this is turning into a back and forth over the same thing (as you said), and because I don't want there to be any hard feelings over it, I'm just gonna let this thread play itself out.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, because that is how the ruleset works. You do realise that *your* interpretation would require that every rule was of the following form:

"Special rule: do stuff! Note: this rule follows all the rules found in the BRB, except where they are specifically noted as being overidden"
?

Do you think that Run! allows you to move out of coherency? After all, nowhere in the rules for Run! does it state that you follow the rules for movement in the movement phase, so therefore it doesnt. Ooh! it ALSO lets you move any unit into impassable terrain - after all it doesnt say that you have to follow the rules on page 14!

See where this leads?

Run is not a Special Rule its an action that various unit types can take in the shooting phase. your arguement is invalid.

Demogerg wrote:I think you are missing a key point, Run, Assault, Etc are all normal rules, Deep Strike is a Special Rule (hence its location in the unit profiles, under special rules) and Special Rules supercede normal rules.

a Special Rule is more specific than a normal rule that applies to everything.

Lash of Submission is not a Special Rule its a psychic power that allows models to "move 2d6" with the assumption of normal movement rules.

No, I am not missing a key point, and I have answered you specifically on this about 3 times now - the fact it is "special" means NOTHING as far as interpreting rules go - after all JI override infantry despite not being "special" (apparently everything in the BRB is general, despite SA being mroe specific than a codex special rule...). Specific > General *means* you have to *specify* that you override the rules *otherwise those rules still apply*.

This is why I told you to look at WBB vs Sweeping Advance - by YOUR interpretation the fact WBB is "special" would mean that Sweeping Advance is overridden. it isnt, meaning you argumen t fails.

This is why Wraiths *specify* that they can move through impassable terrain. DS never, ever, EVER specifies anything - it does, in fact, do the opposite, it gives a general condition ("anywhere" - meaning that your argument fails.

Oh, and Lash! isnt a special rule? Odd that, I;m sure I cant find it in the BRB, can you point the page it is on? /sarcasm


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Demogerg wrote:Run is not a Special Rule its an action that various unit types can take in the shooting phase. your arguement is invalid.

Special rules arent defined as a class, pnly Universal Special Rules (which is a contradiction in terms, but meh), so your attempt to artificially limit this to just those rules you want to call special is invalid.

Run! is a special rule that units can invoke INSTEAD OF shooting in the shooting phase. This rule does not make any reference to the movement rules, therefore they do not apply.

Lash! has a special rule that lets you move affected units 2D6", it makes no reference to the movement rules so (in absentia the FAQ, and not NOT an errata, the confirms it follows the normal mofvement rules) you can indeed mvoe models out of coherency.

Your argument fails as you have decided that "special" means "specific".

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I think you are missing a key point, Run, Assault, Etc are all normal rules, Deep Strike is a Special Rule (hence its location in the unit profiles, under special rules) and Special Rules supercede normal rules.

a Special Rule is more specific than a normal rule that applies to everything.

Lash of Submission is not a [/b]Special Rule its a psychic power that allows models to "move 2d6" with the assumption of normal movement rules.

No, I am not missing a key point, and I have answered you specifically on this about 3 times now - the fact it is "special" means NOTHING as far as interpreting rules go - after all JI override infantry despite not being "special" (apparently everything in the BRB is general, despite SA being mroe specific than a codex special rule...). Specific > General *means* you have to *specify* that you override the rules *otherwise those rules still apply*.

I think it does, as a special rule is more specific than a normal rule

nosferatu1001 wrote:

This is why I told you to look at WBB vs Sweeping Advance - by YOUR interpretation the fact WBB is "special" would mean that Sweeping Advance is overridden. it isnt, meaning you argumen t fails.

Ahh, but Sweeping Advance has a clause that mentions that even [b]Special Rules have no effect on it unless the Special Rule mentions sweeping advace, ala ATSKNF

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is why Wraiths *specify* that they can move through impassable terrain. DS never, ever, EVER specifies anything - it does, in fact, do the opposite, it gives a general condition ("anywhere" - meaning that your argument fails.

Oh, and Lash! isnt a special rule? Odd that, I;m sure I cant find it in the BRB, can you point the page it is on? /sarcasm

Wraiths can move through impassable terrain as part of their normal move, sure, but DS is a special rule that allows you to place the model anywhere. Lash is a psychic power that has specific conditions and instructions, but it is not a Special Rule such as Fleet, Move Through Cover, Stealth, Outflank, Deep Strike, Acute Senses, Psyker, Fearless, Swarm, Independant Character, Power Of the Machine Spirit, Counter-Attack, Etc.

no need to get upset.

Ap,

Read the ENTIRE rule for the Trygon that you are trying to compare.

SUBTERRANEAN ASSAULT

If the trygon scatters onto impassable terrain or another model, he has to move the minimum or the rest of the rule is invalidated because subsequent models would not be able to then utilize the tunnel to arrive via Deep Stike because they cannot be placed on impassable terrain, a model, or within 1" of a model when Deep Striking. If anything your comparison of this needed movement to allow for the rest of the rule to work reinforces my stance on that you cannot initially place a model on or within 1" of an enemy model.

The Trygon special rule FORCES you to move the minimum distance from impassable terrain because resulting models cannot Deep Strike on impassable terrain or another model or within 1". This in itself shows that you cannot then Deep Strike a Mawloc on impassable terrain or another model or within 1" of said model because even the Trygon has a rule to prevent it from happening. The fact the there is a substitute for a Mishap has nothing to do with the placement of the model.

In my codex, he is just a Mawloc that happens to have a special rule about what to do if he scatters onto an enemy unit or within 1" when deep striking.

As for you drop pod assertations:

Space Wolf Codex, pg 47

DROP POD ASSAULT:

Drop Pods always enter play using the Deep Strike rules....

Space Marine Codex, pg 69

DROP POD ASSAULT:

Drop Pods always enter play using the Deep Strike rules....

Not DPA, but drop pods:

Dark Angels Codex, pg 35

SPECIAL RULES:

Inertial Guidance System:

Drop Pods enter play using Deep Strike rules....

And finally an actual relevant codex:

Tyranids Codex, pg 54

TRANSPORT SPORE:

A Mycetic Spore always enters play using the Deep Strike rules....

Way to pick the one codex that does not have "Deep Strike" in the drop pod rules while completely ignoring all the other AND newer ones to support your poorly researched argument Apwill.

I have answered both of your questions.

1. You missed my point about the comparison between mawloc and trygon. Trygon specifies that the rule only occurs on a scatter. The Mawloc's rule never even mentions the word scatter. I'm not sure what direction you are arguing from here, but it doesn't really relate to my initial statement. It's simply an anecdotal inconsistency I noticed while reading over the rules for mawloc placement versus trygon placement. I believe it indicates that there was no intent for there to be a need to "scatter" over enemy models, as you would have already hit on them. Not a RaW argument, and not really the core of my argument which has been stated in several places in this and other threads.

2. I can assure you that I didn't "pick" the one codex that uses different rules, and I ignored nothing. I play Black Templar, Imperial Guard, and I played nids in third edition. Therefore, I own codex: Black templar, codex: Imperial guard, and the third edition codex: tyranids (and perhaps I know bits of 5th edition codex: tyranids from other sources. . . ).

Nothing malevolent or dodgy about my drop pod ruleset choice, it was just the codex I had at hand that had the wording for drop pods in it.

Brother Ramses wrote: Words

Read the rules for Trygon and Drop Pods carefully, they tell you what to do if they were to Scatter onto enemy models, you then reduce the distance, if you were to try and deep strike directly on top of them you would just mishap as normal.

they have no bearing on the rules for the Mawloc, and fall in line just fine with RAW as I have described.

I don't even know what people are arguing any more.

But I will concede that from a strict literal reading that the presence of the word 'place' on page 14 does preclude placing the Mawloc on impassable terrain (and by extension enemy models since they count as impassable terrain) during the first step of the deep strike process.

Demogerg wrote:I think it does, as a special rule is more specific than a normal rule

And this is where you misunderstand what specific vs general means. Yes, a special rule is "more specific" by the nature - it wouldnt be a different rule otherwise. However it STILL needs to specify what rules it overrides - otherwise it doesnt override them. In other words it needs to provide the permission to override the more general rule.

DS does not specify it overrides the more general rule, so it doesn't. When you read the rule on page 14, there is no language in the DS rule that overrides that rule - regardless of what category you decide to put DS in.

Its' status as a "special rule" is *irrelevant* when it comes to determining which rules override eachother. As was stated before, your interpretation requires that every "special rule" explicitly has to state what rules it includes as well as whcih ones it overrides, otherwise it follows none. This entirely ignores how the entire rulebook is written.

Demogerg wrote:
Ahh, but Sweeping Advance has a clause that mentions that even Special Rules have no effect on it unless the Special Rule mentions sweeping advace, ala ATSKNF

Unless the special rule SPECIFIES OTHERWISE - you have misquoted (again) - SA makes no mention of the rule having to state Sweeping Advance, just the language "specify" - used AGAIN! The rule on page 14 tells you the rule must specify otherwise - and, as WBB is to SA, DS does not specify otherwise.

Demogerg wrote:Wraiths can move through impassable terrain as part of their normal move, sure

Love how you gloss this over - they can do so *because* they have a "special rule" that *does* specify they ignore Impassable terrain - so, again, how can you not see that yet again SPECIFY means exactly tha t- you must *specify* that you can override the rule.

Demogerg wrote:, but DS is a special rule that allows you to place the model anywhere.

Yet unlike the SPECIAL RULE (god, you're obsessed) that I mentioned (JI, Skimmers, Wraiths) DS does NOT specify it can be placed in impassable terrain. as such it cannot be.

Demogerg wrote: Lash is a psychic power that has specific conditions and instructions,

....which give you a SPECIAL RULE that lets you move an opponents models in your turn and in your shooting phase. How you can construe this to NOT be a RULE that is SPECIAL is quite beyond me. Impressive contortions are required there.

Demogerg wrote:but it is not a Special Rule such as Fleet, Move Through Cover, Stealth, Outflank, Deep Strike, Acute Senses, Psyker, Fearless, Swarm, Independant Character, Power Of the Machine Spirit, Counter-Attack, Etc.

Yet it is, as it is a rule that is special - the *power* may not be, but the effect it has on a unit IS VERY special indeed. You have made up a category that you consider inclusive when, in fact, it isnt.

Demogerg wrote:no need to get upset.

When you misquote and repeat illogical arguments that have no basis in rules, and don't respond in a meaningful manner, it is hard not to get frustrated. Especially when you are not the only one doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Burger Rage wrote:I don't even know what people are arguing any more.

But I will concede that from a strict literal reading that the presence of the word 'place' on page 14 does preclude placing the Mawloc on impassable terrain (and by extension enemy models since they count as impassable terrain) during the first step of the deep strike process.

Thank you! finally someone understands this.

Place is used twice, so there is no reason to believe they don't mean the same thing both times.

This is why Yakface has decided to go with the "initial placed model is a marker" idea - in other words, despite being told to "place the model" you are doing no such thing. That, however, is not supported in the rules, it is a *change* to the rules.

1. if you are going to quote the rule, quote it all. Not just the parts that are convenient for your arguement. The Trygon rule only occurs when it scatters "on top of impassable terrain or another model (friend or foe)". It specifies those instances because it could also scatter off the board or within 1" of an enemy model which would result in a roll on the mishap table.

While the Mawloc rule does not mention scatter, it does mention Deep Strike which has scatter in the process of using it. Are you contending that because Mawloc does not have scatter in the rule and instead uses Deep Strike it does not scatter? As you pointed out your argument believes in placement to trigger a Terror of the Deep while mine believes in a scatter to trigger Terror of the Deep.

2. Well you stepped into it using an older codex with 5th Edition rules debate as a basis for your point. As pointed out, drop pods and drop pod assault are far different then the BT codex has them listed. You same argument using any of the books I listed, including the Mycetic Spore entry does not stand on its own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: Words

Read the rules for Trygon and Drop Pods carefully, they tell you what to do if they were to Scatter onto enemy models, you then reduce the distance, if you were to try and deep strike directly on top of them you would just mishap as normal.

they have no bearing on the rules for the Mawloc, and fall in line just fine with RAW as I have described.

Any why Demo do they have special rules telling them to move the minimum distance away from impassable terrain or off a enemy model?

Because in both cases you have models disembarking (from the drop pod) or deep striking (from the trygon's hole). that.......wait for it.........wait for it.........................,

CANNOT BE PLACED INTO IMPASSABLE TERRAIN OR ON TOP OF ANOTHER MODEL.

/sigh

Of course it bears on the rules for Mawloc since they were given specific directions to account for possible mishaps occuring which the Mawloc DOES NOT have in his entry. He has an event that occurs WHEN a mishap happens, but nothing gives him direction to CAUSE the mishap to occur.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:I don't even know what people are arguing any more.

But I will concede that from a strict literal reading that the presence of the word 'place' on page 14 does preclude placing the Mawloc on impassable terrain (and by extension enemy models since they count as impassable terrain) during the first step of the deep strike process.

Thank you! finally someone understands this.

Place is used twice, so there is no reason to believe they don't mean the same thing both times.

This is why Yakface has decided to go with the "initial placed model is a marker" idea - in other words, despite being told to "place the model" you are doing no such thing. That, however, is not supported in the rules, it is a *change* to the rules.

I think it is still questionable whether the 'place anywhere' in the Deep Strike rules gives the player permission to ignore the restriction on page 14. I can see valid defenses for either interpretation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:I think it does, as a special rule is more specific than a normal rule

And this is where you misunderstand what specific vs general means. Yes, a special rule is "more specific" by the nature - it wouldnt be a different rule otherwise. However it STILL needs to specify what rules it overrides - otherwise it doesnt override them. In other words it needs to provide the permission to override the more general rule.

DS does not specify it overrides the more general rule, so it doesn't. When you read the rule on page 14, there is no language in the DS rule that overrides that rule - regardless of what category you decide to put DS in.

Its' status as a "special rule" is *irrelevant* when it comes to determining which rules override eachother. As was stated before, your interpretation requires that every "special rule" explicitly has to state what rules it includes as well as whcih ones it overrides, otherwise it follows none. This entirely ignores how the entire rulebook is written.

Demogerg wrote:
Ahh, but Sweeping Advance has a clause that mentions that even Special Rules have no effect on it unless the Special Rule mentions sweeping advace, ala ATSKNF

Unless the special rule SPECIFIES OTHERWISE - you have misquoted (again) - SA makes no mention of the rule having to state Sweeping Advance, just the language "specify" - used AGAIN! The rule on page 14 tells you the rule must specify otherwise - and, as WBB is to SA, DS does not specify otherwise.

I didnt quote anything, I referenced. Nice mistake to try and make me look bad.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Wraiths can move through impassable terrain as part of their normal move, sure

Love how you gloss this over - they can do so *because* they have a "special rule" that *does* specify they ignore Impassable terrain - so, again, how can you not see that yet again SPECIFY means exactly tha t- you must *specify* that you can override the rule.

I dont have a necron codex, so i dont know why you insist on me being more contradictive to your statements.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:, but DS is a special rule that allows you to place the model anywhere.

Yet unlike the SPECIAL RULE (god, you're obsessed) that I mentioned (JI, Skimmers, Wraiths) DS does NOT specify it can be placed in impassable terrain. as such it cannot be.

Those rules dont say "anywhere", do they? because if they say the unit may move "anywhere" then they dont need to say they can move through impassible terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote: Lash is a psychic power that has specific conditions and instructions,

....which give you a SPECIAL RULE that lets you move an opponents models in your turn and in your shooting phase. How you can construe this to NOT be a RULE that is SPECIAL is quite beyond me. Impressive contortions are required there.

there is a difference between special rules and the rules governing an ability, weapon, psychic power, etc. I dont understand how you can be so dense as to not see this. (if im obsessed, you are dense, fair trade on insults, I think that makes it time for this thread to be locked)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:but it is not a Special Rule such as Fleet, Move Through Cover, Stealth, Outflank, Deep Strike, Acute Senses, Psyker, Fearless, Swarm, Independant Character, Power Of the Machine Spirit, Counter-Attack, Etc.

Yet it is, as it is a rule that is special - the *power* may not be, but the effect it has on a unit IS VERY special indeed. You have made up a category that you consider inclusive when, in fact, it isnt.

Look at any codex, look at the Army List section Look at any unit entry, do you see the subsection in the unit entry labeled "Special Rules" I rest my case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Demogerg wrote:no need to get upset.

When you misquote and repeat illogical arguments that have no basis in rules, and don't respond in a meaningful manner, it is hard not to get frustrated. Especially when you are not the only one doing so.

When you misquote and repeat illogical arguments that have no basis in rules, and don't respond in a meaningful manner, it is hard not to get frustrated. Especially when you are not the only one doing so.
Right back at ya!

I just spoke with everyone at Games Workshop and they said I could aim my deepstrikers and other units that arrive like deepstrikers or units that have some variation of deepstriking at any point on the playing area.

Krak_kirby wrote:I just spoke with everyone at Games Workshop and they said I could aim my deepstrikers and other units that arrive like deepstrikers or units that have some variation of deepstriking at any point on the playing area.

Everyone huh. You know, everyone at GW said that you couldn't activate a deff-rolla on a vehicle ('ard boyz, round one), then you could ('ard boyz, round two), and then you couldn't again ('ard boyz, round three). You'll have to excuse my hesitance to take your word for it until I see it printed in an official FAQ.

Wow, these badly interpreted rules have sucked me back in (damn it!).

The word "place" does not automatically link the movement rules to the deepstrike rules. They are two completely self contained rule sets. The deep strike process can be completed entirely without ever referring to the movement rules. They are never mentioned or referred to, and have absolutely no bearing on deepstrike. Deepstrike takes the place of movement, which is why deepstriking units cannot move after deepstriking. Linking the two is silly and incorrect.

God it is going to be absolutely delicious when this gets FAQ'ed as a clarification.

EDIT: also, it isn't that we don't get your argument that continues this disagreement, it's just that your argument is wrong. We understand, and we understand you are incorrect.

apwill4765 wrote: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.

I am playing Tyranids and I purchased two new Trygon kits. I personally don't think that everyone against the Mawloc being initially placed on top of an enemy unit is coming from an anti Nid camp. What I would really hate to see is pro Nid players saying that the Nidz deserve this ruling and thankfully I haven't seen anyone say that as yet. I am by no means a RAW advocate but to me the rules for Deep Strike are simple and easy to understand. Some people in the pro Mawloc camp have come up with some amazing reasons to justify their position... We are all guilty of this at times so I understand but it does nothing to further their goal in my opinion.

I feel certain GW will address this when they release their official errata & FAQ. unfortunately the batrep in the White Dwarf is unofficial and they have made their share of mistakes when reporting a studio battle. It does let us see how the Tyranid codex writer played it and that's important but we don't know for sure if the Mawloc scattered into the Salamander terminators; the report could simply have reported that the Mawloc scattered directly into the enemy unit.

I would have to say what we have here is a controversy as big as the deffrollaz which is unfortunate. I'll be very glad when it's resolved to most everyone's satisfaction for sure.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

apwill4765 wrote: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.

I am playing Tyranids and I purchased two new Trygon kits. I personally don't think that everyone against the Mawloc being initially placed on top of an enemy unit is coming from an anti Nid camp. What I would really hate to see is pro Nid players saying that the Nidz deserve this ruling and thankfully I haven't seen anyone say that as yet. I am by no means a RAW advocate but to me the rules for Deep Strike are simple and easy to understand. Some people in the pro Mawloc camp have come up with some amazing reasons to justify their position... We are all guilty of this at times so I understand but it does nothing to further their goal in my opinion.

I feel certain GW will address this when they release their official errata & FAQ. unfortunately the batrep in the White Dwarf is unofficial and they have made their share of mistakes when reporting a studio battle. It does let us see how the Tyranid codex writer played it and that's important but we don't know for sure if the Mawloc scattered into the Salamander terminators; the report could simply have reported that the Mawloc scattered directly into the enemy unit.

I would have to say what we have here is a controversy as big as the deffrollaz which is unfortunate. I'll be very glad when it's resolved to most everyone's satisfaction for sure.

G

amen.

Two other things of interest… not that it matters at this point in the discussion as people generally have their head in the sand, repeating over and over chants the of RAW and RAI.

The original IA FW Trygon rules and subsequent FAQ allowed the Trygon to directly target opposing models.

Conversely, the Trygon could be used to directly target super heavy vehicles to get straight into an assault without any risk to itself. The original Trygon rules in AI volume 4 seem to offer the best solution. The Trygon counts as assaulting against normal units, but is destroyed by other gargantuan creatures and super-heavy vehicles.

Unfortunately all the original FW FAQ documents are no longer accessible. The only reference (quoted above) exists in a later FAQ. Course those are FW rules .. and I can already hear .. those are not offical GW rules. Fact remains Trygon was a FW model and the GW rules for both the Trygon and Mawloc are an evolution of those original rules which allowed the sort of thing we are discussing.

Something else that strikes me…If a location "on the table" is a valid location for scatter purposes. Let’s hope all of us can agree that we can scatter anywhere on the table ( unless special rules apply) given the proper distance impassable or otherwise under the normal deep strike rules. It is perfectly valid then for my model to scatter onto an enemy model or impassable terrain. Why then should that location be excluded from my target selection if it is a perfectly acceptable a valid end result?

Ragnar .. I'll cover the drinks. Course Van Gogh will be in the house so it will be good Vodka.

Darn Hank you must be feeling quite confident if you are willing to cover for two bottels of vodka.

that's quite interesting the original FW rules but remember they aren't written by the GW 40k development team... And you said so yourself we aren't playing Apocalypse, we're playing 40k.

G

Scatter can be part of Deepstrike.

Rules that affect scatter may affect Deepstrike.

A rule affects Deepstrike will affect scatter.

Rules that affect placement may affect Deepstrike.

Rules that affect Deepstrike will affect placement.

tftd allows placement of a model anywhere and then has rules to explain what occurs if this includes models.

Deepstrike is more specific than general placement rules. (bear in mind that even placement restrictions generally allow something to be placed there if something more specific allows it)

tftd is more specific than Deepstrike rules.

Most rules influencing Deepstrike (droppods for example) affect scatter -- not Deepstrike itself.

The rest of the issue, as I read it, is trying to say "counts as impassible terrain" equates to "counts as terrain except when my opponent does xxx" -- without text backing it. Good luck with that.

Looking forward to read more.

Actually, I am done with this thread. Too bored of it now and need something else to screw around with.

what if two mawlocs scatter on top of one another?

2 mawlocs and a trygon walk into a bar...

why did the mawloc scatter across the road?

two mawlocs enter, one mawloc hits.

The first rule about Mawloc Club?

LoL

Brother Ramses wrote:Actually, I am done with this thread. Too bored of it now and need something else to screw around with.

that says it all¡

G

Demogerg wrote:I didnt quote anything, I referenced. Nice mistake to try and make me look bad.

You referenced entirly incorrectly, as the rule says nothing like you said it did. So it wasnt a misquote, it was just wrong. Better now?

Demogerg wrote:] I dont have a necron codex, so i dont know why you insist on me being more contradictive to your statements.

So when you are told it is a special rule, you say it isn't a special rule despite not having the codex? Not a great argument there.

Demogerg wrote:Those rules dont say "anywhere", do they? because if they say the unit may move "anywhere" then they dont need to say they can move through impassible terrain.

No, they do need to - you do understand that "anywhere" doesnt actually specify anything, dont you? That it is, in fact, general?
So what is it - that DS is specific or that anywhere is specific? You keep changing your mind every time you are shown to be wrong. This gets tiring.

Demogerg wrote:there is a difference between special rules and the rules governing an ability, weapon, psychic power, etc. I dont understand how you can be so dense as to not see this. (if im obsessed, you are dense, fair trade on insults, I think that makes it time for this thread to be locked)

Erm, well it gives you a rule, and this rule is special. I am simply using (gasp!) the English language - what are you using to claim it *isn't* a special rule?

Green Blow Fly wrote:

apwill4765 wrote: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.

I am playing Tyranids and I purchased two new Trygon kits. I personally don't think that everyone against the Mawloc being initially placed on top of an enemy unit is coming from an anti Nid camp. What I would really hate to see is pro Nid players saying that the Nidz deserve this ruling and thankfully I haven't seen anyone say that as yet. I am by no means a RAW advocate but to me the rules for Deep Strike are simple and easy to understand. Some people in the pro Mawloc camp have come up with some amazing reasons to justify their position... We are all guilty of this at times so I understand but it does nothing to further their goal in my opinion.

I feel certain GW will address this when they release their official errata & FAQ. unfortunately the batrep in the White Dwarf is unofficial and they have made their share of mistakes when reporting a studio battle. It does let us see how the Tyranid codex writer played it and that's important but we don't know for sure if the Mawloc scattered into the Salamander terminators; the report could simply have reported that the Mawloc scattered directly into the enemy unit.

I would have to say what we have here is a controversy as big as the deffrollaz which is unfortunate. I'll be very glad when it's resolved to most everyone's satisfaction for sure.

G

Hell, I'll chip in for that first round if they'll just produce an FAQ either way!!
And as Nid player, I guess that makes me Pro-Nids? But anti-Mawloc placed on top of units.....................

And I dont play nids and I think it's not unreasonable to place it on top.

What we need is someone who has the know-how to obtain all the relevent GW staffs home numbers and all call them asking the same question, sure even if they flip flop non stop as long as the number of callers is odd we'll have our answer.

Just any FAQ (well, if it actually changes the rules to override page 14 it really should be an errata to the DS rules to allow every unit to do it, if they want) would do - fingers crossed....

I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

Why an errata? The rules already work how GW want them to so an errata wouldn;t make much sense an FAQ listed under clarification that the Mawloc can DS directly on top of other units just like anything else would be fine. To be honest I doubt GW will even address this question as the answer is so blatantly obvious.

Because we can argue a FAQ all day, Errata are solid rules changes.

I'll take Deep Strike FAQ or Deep Strike Errata... somebody won't like the answer, but it will solve the question for all these units once and for all either way. After all, we are talking about when and where you can Deep Strike... The Mawloc just benefits, or it doesn't by the clarification.

Looks like just about all that can be said on this one has been said, I'm willing to place it into the hands of the GW Rulez Ninjaz now. With any luck, someone on that front has been listening... reading... thinking... and writing as we debated. (lol, probably wishful thinking)

"Drinks..." yeah, weekend is coming up. Drink purchases are in order!

Thanks to all who have weighed in on this topic and remained calm, much appreciated.

I'm off to finish plans for the 10K Apocalypse battle this weekend - woot!

Tac

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just any FAQ (well, if it actually changes the rules to override page 14 it really should be an errata to the DS rules to allow every unit to do it, if they want) would do - fingers crossed....

InquisitorFabius wrote:I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Because we can argue a FAQ all day, Errata are solid rules changes.

Yea sorry guys, it won't be an errata because it doesn't need to be. Interpreting the RaW correctly already allows for DS onto enemy units, so at best you will see a clarification FAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't address it at all, it is so cut and dry.

A lot of people are using arguments about general versus specific rules, or rules which reference or don't reference other sections of rules.

Given the general sloppiness that GW employ in writing rules, which this thread is very good evidence to prove, it is highly unlikely that GW have a hierarchy of rules in mind when they write another rules.

So I think it is a weak base for an argument either way.

apwill4765 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just any FAQ (well, if it actually changes the rules to override page 14 it really should be an errata to the DS rules to allow every unit to do it, if they want) would do - fingers crossed....

InquisitorFabius wrote:I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Because we can argue a FAQ all day, Errata are solid rules changes.

Yea sorry guys, it won't be an errata because it doesn't need to be. Interpreting the RaW correctly already allows for DS onto enemy units, so at best you will see a clarification FAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't address it at all, it is so cut and dry.

Yea, I couldn't let this tidbit just pass under the bridge.

If it is so cut and dry, why has it spawned multiple, mutiple page threads? I mean your statement here is akin to running around the room with your hands over your ears just yelling "NAHNAHNAHNAHNAHNAH!!"

I am all for RAW, but you do NOT have a clear cut case of RAW here as you want to try and claim. The proof being the vast number of arguments against your "RAW".

Seconded

Apwil, your "RAW", as has been shown many times,requires ignoring rules. Deep strike is movement, page 14 restrictions apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Seconded

Apwil, your "RAW", as has been shown many times,requires ignoring rules. Deep strike is movement, page 14 restrictions apply.

Just the rules that don't apply to deep strike in the first place. Oh boy, and round and round we go.

EDIT: Also, it isn't 'my' RaW, it is the RaW, as in, the way the rules are written and structured in the BGB

EDIT2: Also, your 'RaW' requires that you ignore entire sections of the actual rules as written as 'redundancies' that GW places on some rules but not on others. Guess what, not redundancy, qualification. These are qualifications the DS rules don't have.

EDIT3: Also, how has this thread not been locked yet?

Just more running around the room yelling, "NAHNAHNAHNAHNAHNAH!".

Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye!

DS is movement. The movement rules require that you cannot place models in impassable terrain unless you specify otherwise

you have not shown any rules that specify otherwise for DS, in fact your argument flip flops between DS is specific and "Anywhere" is specific, everytime one is shown to be wrong you flip back to the other.

It is not ignoring, I have repeatedly shown you what "specific" means as far as GW is concerned, and this rule does not specify it.

I suggest lock thread with "if you want to ignore the rules, do so and call it RAW"

Goody. I get to pick who gets the last word.

It's unclear. Whether "anywhere" is intended to include on top of enemy units or impassible terrain is impossible to know for sure, though the Mawloc has made some of us question this assumption.

We all look forward to a nice clear FAQ.

And stick a fork in it.