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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Klawz wrote:

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

Does it say that?

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

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

Me not understand.

Kilkrazy wrote:Me not understand.

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

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

Klawz wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Me not understand.

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

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

X=model
-=2" space

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

mikhaila wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

agnosto wrote:

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

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

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

Gwar! wrote:

agnosto wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: clarity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: clarity

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

Pika_power wrote:

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

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

Ah, okay.

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


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

Pika_power wrote:Ah, okay.

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


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

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

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

-Yad

Circumstantial evidence:

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

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

These are not conclusive, but are indicative.

Mannahnin wrote:Circumstantial evidence:

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

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

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

Pika_power wrote:Ah, okay.

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


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

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

Broodfather, that's not necessary.

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

There is no need to levy uncharitable personal characterizations.

Mannahnin wrote:Broodfather, that's not necessary.

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

There is no need to levy uncharitable personal characterizations.

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

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