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.

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

I don't follow. Not sure you're talking about my comment, but you said, "The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules which at least strongly imply that they are permitted to Deep Strike directly onto enemy units. "

I don't see that. When I read the rules for the monolith, it doesn't imply that I can land on enemy units. It tells me what happens if I happen to scatter onto enemy models.

From the Necron Codex, page 21, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance to make space for the monolith."

If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

When I read the rules for spore mines, it doesn't imply that they can land on enemy models. Rather, it requires that you land your spore mines before any units are deployed. It's a very simple step to conclude that spore mines can never land on enemy models, if they're required to Deep Strike before any other models are on the table. (That's page 48, BTW)

So I don't follow your claiming that my argument is circular. I'm simply refuting what you had stated.

Again, there is nothing anyone can do to convince me that my models are the table. I accept that 'the table' is not well defined, but I can assure you that whatever the definition, my models aren't the table. Referring back to page vi, I still think that it is obvious that the table is one requirement needed to play the game, and two armies are a different requirement.

For spore mines he is talking about 4th edition Spore Mines.

Good thing we are in 5th edition.

Brother Ramses wrote:Good thing we are in 5th edition.

4th edition CODEX spore mines as used in 5th edition main rules

So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

Redbeard wrote:

If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me then. If you admit that the Monolith can be placed right next to your models (within 1''), thus not adhering to one of the restrictions in the Movement section of the rulebook, then why can't it just deep strike directly onto the unit? You're already half-way there The Deep Strike rule let's you place it anywhere, so if you can ignore the 1'' restriction, then you should ignore the impassable terrain restriction as well, right?

-Yad

Brother Ramses wrote:So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

they also realized that my spore mines can move their normal 6" after they scatter each turn, then they can assault you, and when they get into B2B contact they explode (and likely die) then explode again, because exploding doesnt say anything about removing the model as a casualty, and if it doesnt say you can, then you can't.

good thing we have this all cleared up, now to finish painting my spore mines of super-doom.

BROODFATHER wrote:

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.

My point being that some of these people will do nothing of the kind, so it's unjust and insulting if you lump all the people who disagree with you into one category with the most annoying ones.

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

they also realized that my spore mines can move their normal 6" after they scatter each turn, then they can assault you, and when they get into B2B contact they explode (and likely die) then explode again, because exploding doesnt say anything about removing the model as a casualty, and if it doesnt say you can, then you can't.

good thing we have this all cleared up, now to finish painting my spore mines of super-doom.

Do you include the Spore Mine in resolving hits at Str4 and AP4? It does say to place the large blast marker over the Spore Mine indicating that it does get hit as well in the resultant blast. So that would take care of you thinking that your SMoD (Spore Mine of Doom) stays on the board after exploding since it would get wounded on 2+, get no save against it's own attack, and per the rules, "....for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

Redbeard wrote:

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

I don't follow. Not sure you're talking about my comment, but you said, "The Monolith and Spore Mines also have rules which at least strongly imply that they are permitted to Deep Strike directly onto enemy units. "

And you responded “Neither of them have rules that allow them to avoid being placed on the table to start their deep strike.”

That is, you are saying that being placed (or targeted) on top of another unit is “avoid(ing) being placed on the table”, which is one of your conclusions. Making it a premise as well is circular reasoning.

By the interpretation I’m using, the phrasing “anywhere on the table” as used in the Deep Strike rules, can include a point directly on top of an enemy unit. As has already been pointed out, what exactly constitutes “the table” is very debatable, but I have recently come to the conclusion that apparently GW is using it in the sense of “the play area”, here, because that’s most consistent with how the Mawloc is written, with how the Monolith is written, and with how Spore Mines used to be written.

Redbeard wrote:From the Necron Codex, page 21, "Because of the sheer mass of the Monolith, it is not destroyed if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives. Instead, move any models that are in the way the minimum distance to make space for the monolith."

If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

I can understand that premise, and I agree that it’s a workable way to play, but if the rule allows you to place it within 1”, GW’s already broken the proscription on proximity to enemy models. That space is no longer sacrosanct.

Redbeard wrote:When I read the rules for spore mines…

Apologies. I was forgetting the way spore mines have changed. They are no longer a directly comparable case, except for historical reference prior to the appearance of the new codex.

Redbeard wrote:Again, there is nothing anyone can do to convince me that my models are the table. I accept that 'the table' is not well defined, but I can assure you that whatever the definition, my models aren't the table. Referring back to page vi, I still think that it is obvious that the table is one requirement needed to play the game, and two armies are a different requirement.

Given the rules of the Mawloc, and given the evidence (certainly not conclusive, given their error rate, but indicative) of the recent WD battle report in which they were used, and given the way spore mines USED to work (at least), do you sincerely doubt how GW’s going to rule it if and when it gets into the FAQ? GBF and I have each put up a bottle of vodka so far. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

I'll put one up as well. My bet is on you can put it anywhere.

apwill4765 wrote:I'll put one up as well. My bet is on you can put it anywhere.

So we will just disagree on agreeing that you are wrong. Got it.

Are you putting your vodka where your mouth is?

Redbeard wrote:

Again, there is nothing anyone can do to convince me that my models are the table. I accept that 'the table' is not well defined, but I can assure you that whatever the definition, my models aren't the table. Referring back to page vi, I still think that it is obvious that the table is one requirement needed to play the game, and two armies are a different requirement.

I don't understand. You say your models aren't part of the table. You say terrain is part of the table. What happens when your tank is destroyed? It is now terrain is it not? Is your destroyed tank now part of the table? You bought it, you painted it and you brought it to the game. It is now destroyed and considered terrain. Can an enemy model deep strike, legally in your mind, directly on top of your destroyed tank and into terrain?

A tank becomes terrain when destroyed. There are rules to account for that when that situation arises. As far as I know, there are no rules that make models terrain before that specific instance.

Insomuch that once a tank was destroyed and then became terrain, a model would be able to deep strike onto it.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:So how does 4th Edition codex have an relevancy on how 5th Edition codex works in 5th Edition main rules?

I could just as easily surmise and show with the NEW Spore Mine rules, GW realized the mistake they made allowing 4th Edition Spore Mines to Deep Strike on or within 1" of an enemy model and rectified it in the new codex.

So why would the Mawloc be allowed to do what GW has obviously now disallowed the Spore Mine to do? See, I can play old codex/new codex too.

they also realized that my spore mines can move their normal 6" after they scatter each turn, then they can assault you, and when they get into B2B contact they explode (and likely die) then explode again, because exploding doesnt say anything about removing the model as a casualty, and if it doesnt say you can, then you can't.

good thing we have this all cleared up, now to finish painting my spore mines of super-doom.

Do you include the Spore Mine in resolving hits at Str4 and AP4? It does say to place the large blast marker over the Spore Mine indicating that it does get hit as well in the resultant blast. So that would take care of you thinking that your SMoD (Spore Mine of Doom) stays on the board after exploding since it would get wounded on 2+, get no save against it's own attack, and per the rules, "....for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

yep, thats why i added in parenthesis "and likely die" and at that point they would explode again, like i said.

Yad wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
If we go with my base premise, that you have to actually follow the Deep Strike rules on page 95, and place the model on the table (rather than on your opponent's models), then the monolith doesn't yield any exception to this requirement. You could place it right next to my models (within 1"), and force me to move back. You could scatter towards my models, also requiring me to move them. But, you cannot initially place the monolith on top of my models.

Perhaps you can clear something up for me then. If you admit that the Monolith can be placed right next to your models (within 1''), thus not adhering to one of the restrictions in the Movement section of the rulebook, then why can't it just deep strike directly onto the unit? You're already half-way there The Deep Strike rule let's you place it anywhere, so if you can ignore the 1'' restriction, then you should ignore the impassable terrain restriction as well, right?

The rules for Deep Strike are what matters when you are resolving a Deep Strike. It's not a normal move, it's a Deep Strike, and as such, only needs to deal with the rules specified for Deep Striking. Hence, "place on the table" is what matters. The 1" issue is resolved within the Deep Strike rules for these cases - either you're mishapping, or you're triggering a special rule instead of mishapping. Either way, the end result of the Deep Strike is that you're not within 1", so no problem.

Mannahnin wrote:
By the interpretation I’m using, the phrasing “anywhere on the table” as used in the Deep Strike rules, can include a point directly on top of an enemy unit. As has already been pointed out, what exactly constitutes “the table” is very debatable, but I have recently come to the conclusion that apparently GW is using it in the sense of “the play area”, here, because that’s most consistent with how the Mawloc is written, with how the Monolith is written, and with how Spore Mines used to be written.

Indeed, the Table refers to the play area. That's fine. Problem is, two objects cannot occupy the same space (you won't find this in the 40k rulebook. You might in an entry-level physics text, but then if they go into quantum stuff new rules apply). So you cannot place your model in the play area if my model is already there. You simply can't do it. The best you can do is place your model on top of my model, which isn't what is required.

The rules on page 95 don't say, 'pick where you want to go', they say, 'place'. That means you put it down there.

I can understand that premise, and I agree that it’s a workable way to play, but if the rule allows you to place it within 1”, GW’s already broken the proscription on proximity to enemy models. That space is no longer sacrosanct.

This is resolved before the conclusion of the Deep Strike action, and as such, doesn't break the prohibition at all. You never leave the Deep Strike step with your model within 1" of an opponent's model - either a mishap occurs, or a special rule is triggered, and the proximity rule is restored.

Given the rules of the Mawloc, and given the evidence (certainly not conclusive, given their error rate, but indicative) of the recent WD battle report in which they were used, and given the way spore mines USED to work (at least), do you sincerely doubt how GW’s going to rule it if and when it gets into the FAQ? GBF and I have each put up a bottle of vodka so far. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

I've seen WD battle reports played wrong so many times that you cannot seriously be considering them as evidence. Given the rules for the Mawloc, I can understand that they may have wanted it to do something else. The fact that they cannot write rules that do what they want doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm sure that we can find several other units that have rules that don't actually do what they're intended to do. I've also seen FAQ answers that go one way, then go the other way, and then settle on 'well, that's what it says, so go with what's actually written'.

If they issue Errata for this, I'd believe that they'll change it so that it is obvious what the Mawloc can do. If it were up to me, I'd write it so that you don't actually Deep Strike, but you place the blast marker first, resolve any hits beneath it, and then place the Mawloc where the Blast Marker was. If the Blast Marker scatters off the table or into impassable terrain, go to Deep Strike mishap resolution. That's clean and elegant and leaves no doubt as to what is supposed to be happening. If they FAQ it, it's anyone's guess which way they'll go. I wouldn't have expected them to rule that a chaos model with wings is different than one with a jump pack (for the same cost), but they did, because that's what the book actually says.

Anyhow, I don't drink hard liquor. I'd be happy to see your vodka with a six pack of your choice of microbrew, though I claim that if they declare it Errata (as in, we meant to write it differently) rather than just an FAQ answer, that means I was right.

I place my Mawloc, not on top of your models, but underneath your models! (I place my mawloc in that space in between the model's base and the table) Now what?

Redbeard wrote:
Indeed, the Table refers to the play area. That's fine. Problem is, two objects cannot occupy the same space (you won't find this in the 40k rulebook. You might in an entry-level physics text, but then if they go into quantum stuff new rules apply). So you cannot place your model in the play area if my model is already there. You simply can't do it. The best you can do is place your model on top of my model, which isn't what is required.

The rules on page 95 don't say, 'pick where you want to go', they say, 'place'. That means you put it down there.

Earlier you mentioned that the Wobbly model syndrome doesn't apply to models, this is where the WMS rules would apply, I would LIKE to place my model on top of yours, however, I dont want to scratch the paint, so we (theoretically) agree to use a die or somesuch as a placeholder for the center position of the mawloc before rolling scatter.

and if you choose to not allow the WMS, then I would be forced to try and place my model on top of yours without damaging them, not something I want to do at all.

technically guys, you are not placing your mawloc on top of your opponents models, but onto the table in the exact location of their models, resolving what the codex says to. It says anywhere. So I place my model where yours is. Plain as day. Cant beleive this discussion is still going.

Gwar! wrote:
If you don't like it, don't use it.

Lol Gwar says something reasonable for once.

And I guess I can see how you didnt like how they worded that. But in the rule book it clearly says you can pick a point anywhere on the board. It doesn't say they spot has to be smart or not affect your units. That's why this jank works

Natfka wrote:technically guys, you are not placing your mawloc on top of your opponents models, but onto the table in the exact location of their models, resolving what the codex says to. It says anywhere. So I place my model where yours is. Plain as day. Cant beleive this discussion is still going.

So simple a caveman can create multiple threads about it?

Brother Ramses wrote:

Natfka wrote:technically guys, you are not placing your mawloc on top of your opponents models, but onto the table in the exact location of their models, resolving what the codex says to. It says anywhere. So I place my model where yours is. Plain as day. Cant beleive this discussion is still going.

So simple a caveman can create multiple threads about it?

Yep!

Just because people spam whining threads doesn't mean the topic isn't simple.

witchcore wrote:
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.

Has everyone just missed this point by Witchcore? The transitive properties listed above follows the exact guidelines for deepstriking and allows models to be placed on other models to start the deepstriking process.

It's generally accepted that you can deepstrike into terrain. There are restrictions (levels in buildings). However, based on being able to deepstrike into terrain, the following rules apply:

Rule #1 terrain = table (if we can't agree on this, then the rest of this discussion does not apply).

Rule #2 a subset of terrain is impassable terrain.
Therefore: impassable terrain = terrain = table.

Rule #3 per the rule quoted above on page 13 of the rule book - "Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."
Therefore: models (friends or enemies) = impassable terrain = terrain = table.

Rule #4 per the deepstrike rules on page 95 "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table." Based on the transitive properties above, you have:
Place a model on the table = Place a model on terrain = Place a model on impassable terrain = Place a model on models (friends or enemies)

The creation of the deepstrike mishap table is how a player handles the final result of the deepstrike rule if it triggers a mishap condition. And as Yakface indicated before, the wobbly model syndrome rule addresses any hardship for placing a model on other models before the deepstrike process is complete. Page 13 again "Sometimes you may find that a particular piece of terrain makes it hard...."

Since:

models (friends or enemies) = impassable terrain = terrain

applies, the transitive properties above allow the wobbly model syndrome guidelines to address this problem.

By God, that seems...entirely Rules as Written!

Transitive properties do not work in that example.

Based on the formula of:

If a = b and b = c, then a = c.

However, the term included is "counts as". Which then allows models to "count as" impassable terrain but not limited to impassable terrain.

For example, in your formula, the entire table would count as impassable terrain and force mishaps no matter where you land which we know is not the case.

Nice attempt at rationalization, but doesn't pass the smell check.

Impassible terrain is terrain. Therefore if a model "counts as" impassible terrain" then it "counts as" terrain.

Terrain is part of the table. Therefore, if it "counts as" terrain, then it "counts as" an section of the table.

If something is a section of the table, I can place a deep striking model on it. Therefore, if it "counts as" a section of the table, then it's okay to place a model on it.

That's the long winded version of the equivalences. Of course, that's still subject to the "Placement during deep strike isn't placement; the scatter movement during deep strike isn't movement" arguments that tend to be delayed until situations like this where a potential advantage can be argued.

I understand that, but if you want to carry that over then you also cannot move, cannot shoot, and cannot assault since terrain or impassable terrain cannot do any of those things.

So as you pointed out for me, while it models can "count as" certain things, it is not bound to be those things. So therefore when you try to equalize the formula it ONLY works part of the time. You only happen to point out the times when it works for you. Others are pointing out when it works for them.

Simple enough to explain,

7 + 3 = 10

7 + 3 (sometimes counts as 4) = 10 but sometimes 11

I think Malice has made the equation simple enough for me to run my events and allow deep strike placement anywhere in the play area...