INAT FAQ - Deep Strike / Mawloc - Disappointment :(

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.

**DarthDiggler**

Amen Brother Yakface

**Redbeard**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how I see it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Demogerg**

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

**Redbeard**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**agnosto**

edit:

Nevermind, Redbeard was much more eloquent.

**Demogerg**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Pika_power**

"First place one model anywhere on the table".

No mention of placeholders, just placing the initial model.

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

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

**Redbeard**

Demogerg wrote:
1) Wobbly Model Syndrome covers this.

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

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

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

Really now, which is easier to understand?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Demogerg**

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

Now, if you want to be pedantic

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

**coredump**

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

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

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

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

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

**Redbeard**

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

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

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

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

**xebabb**

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

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

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

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

**40kenthusiast**

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

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

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

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

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

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

**agnosto**

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

**Janthkin**

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

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

**yakface**

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

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

Really now, which is easier to understand?

Redbeard,

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

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

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

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

If you can

**Redbeard**

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

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

**BROODFATHER**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Q: Is Deep Strike movement?

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

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

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

**Gwar!**

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

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

**yakface**

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

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

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

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

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

**Illumini**

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

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

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

**agnosto**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Kilkrazy**

Some models are static, for instance drop pods.

**apwill4765**

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

lolpwnt. Good example Kilkrazy.

models = static sometimes.

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

**Klawz**

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

**Kilkrazy**

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

**BROODFATHER**

Gwar! wrote:
BROODFATHER wrote:I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?
Protip: The Lictors ability explicitly states that it only works when he is on the table. Try reading the rules before accusing others of things eh?

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

**Klawz**

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

Does it say that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BROODFATHER wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
BROODFATHER wrote:I notice you did not address the nerffing of the Tyrants Hive Commander ability. I mean you state that the ability doesn't say it works while the model isn't in play so it doesn't. Yet you totally contradict yourselves in the ruling on DeathLeaper. How about some consistency?
Protip: The Lictors ability explicitly states that it only works when he is on the table. Try reading the rules before accusing others of things eh?
Was talking about you know the DEATHLEAPER ability OMG its after me. The one if you had bothered to read the FAQ was addressed by the FAQ. Next time you try to get condescending get your facts straight. Because in all honesty you have NOTHING to be condescending about. Reading comprehension for the loss there "friend".

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

**Kilkrazy**

Klawz wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the size of base defines the footprint the model covers in deep strike.
Does it say that?

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

**Gwar!**

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

Roll a 4+

Thank you, I'll be here all week!