Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First, I posted this on the Adeptus Windy City site already - if you read both threads, I'm sorry for the duplicate posting.

Second, I read through a few of the Tyranid threads as well as the long 4 page or so thread. I've seen this issue touched on in discussion, but I didn't get a good feel for a consensus. I appoligize if this has been definitely addressed elswhere... please direct me to the thread with link if it has. Otherwise, continue...

Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

I understand this requires a technical reading of various rules. Those that are involved are summarized /paraphrased below for discussion purposes - not to recreate or copy rules as written...

1. Movement / Assault, RB: No model may move within 1" of the enemy accept in assault
2. Deep Strike, RB: Models may deploy to field from reserve, place one model from unit on field, roll dice for final location, placement of unit in final position counts as Movement, unit counts as moving, if "something goes wrong" unit rolls on mishap table
3. Mawloc, Tyranid Codex: Deep Strike rule, special mishap rule (if it suffers a mishap the player does not roll on the Mishap Table. It has a separate special effect)

As I understand it, the argument FOR allowing it goes... placement of a model in Deep Strike is not movement. It is just a place holder for the intended target location. Players in support of the interpretation prefer to place their Mawloc place holder within 1" of the enemy hoping for a "HIT" on the scatter or improving their odds to end up within 1" of the enemy. They argue that since movement does not occur until the models final destination is determined, they are not technically "moving" until after the scatter dice has been rolled.

As I understand it, the argument AGAINST allowing it goes... models may only intentionally move within 1" of the enemy in an assault. The Mishap table is for accidents occuring from Deep Strikes that did not go as planned (per the rule's reading.) The Mawloc has Deep Strike rule and deploys as normal. It's only exception is that *if* an mishap occurs, then it does not roll on the standard table. Therefore, all deep striking models (Mawlocs included) must select position placement at least 1" away from the enemy when deep striking. Such palace holders may not intentionally select a location that is within 1" of the enemy as that is the intended position which will count as movement when it appears.

(I have read further extreme arguments being made that one can allow their Mawloc to deep strike right on top of the enemy models, but as a deep striking model must be placed onto the battlefield (not on top of enemy models), it seems to be generally understood that starting your deep strike location on top of an enemy model not supported in the base rules)

Cheers,

Tac

I am of the school of thought that you play the Mawloc as you would any other deep striking unit. He does not have a special rule for deep striking, ONLY if he has a mishap. Once a mishap occurs, such as scattering onto enemy troops, then his special rule goes into affect.

Nothing in the Deep Strike rules allows him to specifically place himself on a unit. He must scatter onto said unit to trigger his special mishap rules.

I am at work right now and my Nid dex is at home, but is there a rule for the Mawloc if he scatters off the board? Does he move the minimum distance to get on the board or does he finally have to roll on the regular mishap table?

Tactica wrote:
Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Yes. Why? Your are placing the model, where you would like it to arrive. Your are, not at this point, deploying the model.

You could, if you wanted, place the "first model" of that unit base-to-base with an enemy model or ontop of a rhino. If you don't scatter (or enough) then that very first model will be subject to the mishap table (and most likely all the other models of his squad) when you come to try and deploy them.. I.e base-to-base or on top of a rhino are either within 1" of an enemy model or impassable terrain, respectively.

Tactica wrote:Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

Using the above logic, you can now place your mawloc anywhere on the battlefield... When it comes to rolling on the mishap table (i.e due to being on top of a rhino!) you instead use the "Terror from the Deep" rule. HtH's

Tactica wrote:Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Yes

Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

Yes

Razerous wrote:

Tactica wrote:
Question 1:
Is a player allowed to select a point for Deep Strike that is within 1" of enemy model(s)... For example - by placing a Deep Striking model in base to base with an enemy model?

Yes. Why? Your are placing the model, where you would like it to arrive. Your are, not at this point, deploying the model.

You could, if you wanted, place the "first model" of that unit base-to-base with an enemy model or ontop of a rhino. If you don't scatter (or enough) then that very first model will be subject to the mishap table (and most likely all the other models of his squad) when you come to try and deploy them.. I.e base-to-base or on top of a rhino are either within 1" of an enemy model or impassable terrain, respectively.

Tactica wrote:Question 2:
Should a player deep striking a Mawloc (new Tyranid Trygon variant that has a special rule for deep strike mishap) be allowed to select a point for deep strike within 1" of an enemy model? (This model has a special rule for mishaps)

Using the above logic, you can now place your mawloc anywhere on the battlefield... When it comes to rolling on the mishap table (i.e due to being on top of a rhino!) you instead use the "Terror from the Deep" rule. HtH's

So all you are doing is breaking rules to increase your chance to trigger Terror from the Deep? As mentioned before, I am at my office, but the rules lawyering of "you are placing your model where you would like it to arrive not deploying" is pretty weak and just cheesy. The point you WANT it to arrive is within 1" of a model, someplace that you are not allowed to then subsequently deploy. So you are intentionally setting yourself up to break a rule to trigger a Terror of the Deep.

I would have no problem if you deployed 2" away from my unit and then scattered onto it because that also takes into account that if you score a hit, I will get to fire on you. In your instance, you are not only hoping for a hit (since it would trigger the special rule) but also for the scatter in the right direction (which would trigger the special rule).

That is rules lawyering to an in-game advantage which is wrong, mmmkay?

In the Deep Strike rule, it states that you must place the model on the "battlefield" where you want it to appear. If you attempt to place a model on top of the enemy model, have you fulfilled the requirement to place your model on the "battlefield", or did you place your model on an "ememy model", which does not fulfill the requirements of "battlefield?"

Something to considere, I do not have my books with me (at work) but I believe page 13 or so states something about enemy models are considered impassible. I also believe there is a statement in the book (different page) about models must be placed on the field, no place holding with dice or imaginary placement of models temporarily. In other words, if they cannot occupy the intended space on their own, they cannot sit there.

Cheers,

Tac

Tactica wrote:In the Deep Strike rule, it states that you must place the model on the "battlefield" where you want it to appear. If you attempt to place a model on top of the enemy model, have you fulfilled the requirement to place your model on the "battlefield", or did you place your model on an "ememy model", which does not fulfill the requirements of "battlefield?"

Ah, but by that logic, you can never place it on the table.

"I place my model on the table."
"No, it's on the paint/flock/cloth that's on the table."

This would be akin to me wanting to deep strike a unit of Sky Claws on top of a an enemy unit or within 1" to specifically hope for a mishap roll that results in a delayed because I want to bring them in from reserves next turn, not this turn.

Mawloc just happens to have a rule that changes the rules for a mishap. The owning player needs to hope for a mishap, not engineer one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Tactica wrote:In the Deep Strike rule, it states that you must place the model on the "battlefield" where you want it to appear. If you attempt to place a model on top of the enemy model, have you fulfilled the requirement to place your model on the "battlefield", or did you place your model on an "ememy model", which does not fulfill the requirements of "battlefield?"

Ah, but by that logic, you can never place it on the table.

"I place my model on the table."
"No, it's on the paint/flock/cloth that's on the table."

I would say that paint/flock/cloth are representative of the "battlefield" while the model you want to place Mawloc on is representative of a unit ON the "battlefield."

Rules for model placement are covered in the BRB technically you cannot place the model on impassible terrain under RaW. However you are allowed to place a model within 1" of another model this is fine and not prohibitted.

To be honest I expect this to be FAQ'd because the rules are pretty obvious that in fact you are allowed to place the Mawloc dircetly on top of an enemy unit should you so wish. Heck that is the entire point of the model!! Though under RaW all you can do is place with next to an enemy unit.

This would be akin to me wanting to deep strike a unit of Sky Claws on top of a an enemy unit or within 1" to specifically hope for a mishap roll that results in a delayed because I want to bring them in from reserves next turn, not this turn.

Yes you can do this if you so choose it is pretty stupid as you have as much chance of having the unit land completely in the worse place or destroyed as you have of it being delayed...

I understand the RAW arguement that makes TFTD nearly useless.

I also understand the RAW arguement stating that it can be used as I think it was intended.

The Mawloc is a terrible unit overall, WS3, only 3 attacks, Ld 8, no shooting attacks whatsoever, no invul save, only a 3+ normal save, all this for 170 points.

to try and argue that the ability is overpowered is a rediculous one as well, it will scatter 2/3rds of the time, it can be used at MOST in an ideal situation 3 times, and he is left vulnerable to assault and close-range firepower after each use, and its just S6 AP2, terrible for hurting vehicles, even rear armor 10. marginally usefull for hitting terminators, but then you get into the debate about cover saves from a non-shooting attack...

FlingitNow wrote:Rules for model placement are covered in the BRB technically you cannot place the model on impassible terrain under RaW.

Wow, seriously...

Do you even read the rules? Models can be Deployed on or placed on Impassible Terrain just fine. They cannot MOVE onto Impassible Terrain or Through it, unless they are Jump Infantry who may land on top of it if they will fit there.

There is no rules in the 5th editon codex that does not allows you to deepstrike on any unit. The only reason why you don't want to deepstrike because of the mishap table. The Mawloc disreguards the mishap table, therfore you are allow to deepstrike with any penatlies.

Do you even read the rules? Models can be Deployed on or placed on Impassible Terrain just fine.

Do you? "Models may not be place in impassable terrain" BRB pg14...

Which takes us right back to the argument that some thing that deep striking is not movement. Really? That is the stance on which this whole argument is based? It is not movement, it is deployment?

So after Mawloc pops out via deepstrike, he can move his normal movement?

FlingitNow wrote:

Do you even read the rules? Models can be Deployed on or placed on Impassible Terrain just fine.

Do you? "Models may not be place in impassable terrain" BRB pg14...

Guess what? That's in the Movement rules! Deep Striking is not movement, nor is deployment.

Guess what? That's in the Movement rules! Deep Striking is not movement, nor is deployment.

So rules written in one section have no bearing on any other part of the rulebook now? It is in the movement section but it specifically states placement.

If you follow the DS process and try to DS onto an enemy unit how p off would the guy be when you dumped your Mawloc model on top of his lovingly painted Terminators, who promptly fell apart...

FlingitNow wrote:If you follow the DS process and try to DS onto an enemy unit how p off would the guy be when you dumped your Mawloc model on top of his lovingly painted Terminators, who promptly fell apart...

Errm... What?

You have been making less and less sense recently, but this just takes the biscuit.

Errm... What?

You have been making less and less sense recently, but this just takes the biscuit.

Cheers Gwar I'll take that as a compliament erm....

Procedure for DSing:

1. Place model (so if you're saying you can place on impassible terrain because you don't like the rule on pg 14 then you can place it on someone else's miniatures).
2. Model is now sitting on top of their miniatures, then you roll the scatter dice and 2d6.
3. see if a scatter occurs, requiring measuring from that placed model (still sitting on top of those now broken terminators) and place the model in it's new place. At this point you replace the Mawloc model with the large blast template if it is still on top of some of those broken Terminators (or indeed a different unit).

Now do you get it?

Or, you know, you could just hover the miniature over them like a normal person?
It's all a moot point anyway because the Mawlocks ability doesn't work as there is no such thing as a Blast Template anyway.

You do know that there is a little thing you can do called "holding the miniature above the terminators, until the terminators are moved out of the way".

My question is this. IF it does scatter into a squad who has to move? Who has the right away? Do you take the hits on the unit and stop the model regardless 1" similar to a Drop Pod?

broxus wrote:My question is this. IF it does scatter into a squad who has to move? Who has the right away? Do you take the hits on the unit and stop the model regardless 1" similar to a Drop Pod?

All models left underneath the Mawloc are moved as far as neccesary. This is NOT the way the rule is written exactly.

What does the codex say exactly?

Or, you know, you could just hover the miniature over them like a normal person?

Hovering is not placing...

It's all a moot point anyway because the Mawlocks ability doesn't work as there is no such thing as a Blast Template anyway.

woo hoo

Unless specified. Place the model anywhere on the table is easily read as specifying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:Do you? "Models may not be place in impassable terrain" BRB pg14...

quote clipping ftw. Is impassable terrain ANYWHERE on the table? yes. Exception granted.

Is impassable terrain ANYWHERE on the table? yes. Exception granted.

Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid.

Deepstrike rules are more specific than the general placement rules.

really.

FlingitNow wrote:

Is impassable terrain ANYWHERE on the table? yes. Exception granted.

Not specific enough to grant an exception I'm afraid.

And you know this how?

Deepstrike rules are more specific than the general placement rules.

They don't specifically override this rule the just state anywhere on the table, to be specific it would have to mention it was overriding this rule by saying including on impassible terrain it doesn't.

Brother Ramses wrote:So all you are doing is breaking rules to increase your chance to trigger Terror from the Deep? As mentioned before, I am at my office, but the rules lawyering of "you are placing your model where you would like it to arrive not deploying" is pretty weak and just cheesy. The point you WANT it to arrive is within 1" of a model, someplace that you are not allowed to then subsequently deploy. So you are intentionally setting yourself up to break a rule to trigger a Terror of the Deep.

I would have no problem if you deployed 2" away from my unit and then scattered onto it because that also takes into account that if you score a hit, I will get to fire on you. In your instance, you are not only hoping for a hit (since it would trigger the special rule) but also for the scatter in the right direction (which would trigger the special rule).

That is rules lawyering to an in-game advantage which is wrong, mmmkay?

Please explain to my WHY it is weak and chessy and importantly, breaking the rules. If you decide to post inflamatory remarks please be prepared to actually follow through otherwise it is trolling. If you cant find a reason (if you had the codex) and still posted it is trolling and if you simply think you are right but cant access a codex and post anyway, its still trolling. So when you do get a chnace to read the codex/rulebook, please explain why it "is breaking rules". Thanks.

It is not breaking a rule as the rule in question is not being broken. The rule is simply being followed (from my point of view, models/terrain/flock/paint all count as the battlefield) and then subsequently invoking more rules when the model gets to the stage of mishap.

Now as I see it, (assuming we use the large blast marker), the Terror from the deep rule is perfectly fine in its initial deployment (and I wont bring into the testy subject of the definition of "avoiding" and the context of the word "move" so thats alrite) of the str6 mouth-blast.

I would also have no problem deploying 2" away but I would prefer to deploy in the middle of the unit (as would a close-ranged shooting drop-pod squad/model) as it is allowed (again, read above, please explain how it is not allowed) by the rules. I am using the rules to provide myself with an in-game advantage but I have yet to see how it would be breaking the rules.