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.

Demogerg wrote:

Tactica wrote:a counter arguement

But I think where the logic falls apart is where Deep Strike is not a normal rule, it is a special rule granted to certain units, Such as move through cover, counter attack, furious charge, acute senses, fearless, stealth, fleet, etc.

and as a special rule it must be taken as a whole that supercedes any conflicting normal rules listed in the game, to play it any other way would be to nullify all existing special rules from being able to do anything. this is why when the special rule says "anywhere" as everyone has been so adamant about, it means anywhere, regardless of the conflicting restrictions that are normally in place.

Though I do not agree (as noted in page 8), I will play devil's advocate, my above comments aside... the other portion of the Deep Strike rule is Mishap. It states it happens when something goes wrong. It does not state that it occurs when something goes right. This is an important distinction. If something goes wrong, it does not go according to plan. In rules, it is represented by a scatter into a place your model / unit is not supposed to be.

This seems that since a Mishap only occurs when something goes wrong i.e. moved within an inch / on an enemy model, landed on impassible terrain, etc. Furthermore, it appears to support my argument that you cannot start by placing your model in such a situation since you can only end up in such a situation when something does not go according to plan. Due to the language of the Mishap rule, it appears the model can only end up there by something going wrong i.e. Mishap.

With Mishap defined as part of Deep Strike, how do you reconcile that language in your interpretation of Deep Strike?

Cheers,

Tac

Tactica wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Tactica wrote:a counter arguement

But I think where the logic falls apart is where Deep Strike is not a normal rule, it is a special rule granted to certain units, Such as move through cover, counter attack, furious charge, acute senses, fearless, stealth, fleet, etc.

and as a special rule it must be taken as a whole that supercedes any conflicting normal rules listed in the game, to play it any other way would be to nullify all existing special rules from being able to do anything. this is why when the special rule says "anywhere" as everyone has been so adamant about, it means anywhere, regardless of the conflicting restrictions that are normally in place.

Though I do not agree (as noted in page 8), I will play devil's advocate, my above comments aside... the other portion of the Deep Strike rule is Mishap. It states it happens when something goes wrong. It does not state that it occurs when something goes right. This is an important distinction. If something goes wrong, it does not go according to plan. In rules, it is represented by a scatter into a place your model / unit is not supposed to be.

This seems that since a Mishap only occurs when something goes wrong i.e. moved within an inch / on an enemy model, landed on impassible terrain, etc. Furthermore, it appears to support my argument that you cannot start by placing your model in such a situation since you can only end up in such a situation when something does not go according to plan. Due to the language of the Mishap rule, it appears the model can only end up there by something going wrong i.e. Mishap.

With Mishap defined as part of Deep Strike, how do you reconcile that language in your interpretation of Deep Strike?

Cheers,

Tac

Assigning 'right' or 'wrong' to the mishap event does not constitute a valid premise for your conclusion. This is a subjective assignment by you. A mishap is a rule invoked under very specific conditions, and has no inherent rightness or wrongness.

Is a mishap always indicative of something 'wrong'? Could their ever be a time/tactic where one would want to risk a mishap? Maybe, maybe not.

-Yad

Tactica wrote:

Demogerg wrote:

Tactica wrote:a counter arguement

But I think where the logic falls apart is where Deep Strike is not a normal rule, it is a special rule granted to certain units, Such as move through cover, counter attack, furious charge, acute senses, fearless, stealth, fleet, etc.

and as a special rule it must be taken as a whole that supercedes any conflicting normal rules listed in the game, to play it any other way would be to nullify all existing special rules from being able to do anything. this is why when the special rule says "anywhere" as everyone has been so adamant about, it means anywhere, regardless of the conflicting restrictions that are normally in place.

Though I do not agree (as noted in page 8), I will play devil's advocate, my above comments aside... the other portion of the Deep Strike rule is Mishap. It states it happens when something goes wrong. It does not state that it occurs when something goes right. This is an important distinction. If something goes wrong, it does not go according to plan. In rules, it is represented by a scatter into a place your model / unit is not supposed to be.

This seems that since a Mishap only occurs when something goes wrong i.e. moved within an inch / on an enemy model, landed on impassible terrain, etc. Furthermore, it appears to support my argument that you cannot start by placing your model in such a situation since you can only end up in such a situation when something does not go according to plan. Due to the language of the Mishap rule, it appears the model can only end up there by something going wrong i.e. Mishap.

With Mishap defined as part of Deep Strike, how do you reconcile that language in your interpretation of Deep Strike?

Cheers,

Tac

That is a very good point when you consider the context of a special rule, however, something going "wrong" or "right" is entirely based on perspective. Also, the mishap portion of the rules gives a set of outcomes that is almost universally bad for the deep-striking unit, the unit in question regarding this arguement however ignores the Mishap table and has its own special rule that changes the outcome to be something positive.

A mishap could be something going wrong. It doesn't state which party it is going wrong for.

You could easily argue that a monstrous creature erupting from the ground beneath a squad of space marines is 'something going horribly wrong' for them.

Does the Mawloc have a special rule for Mishaps if it scatters off the table or any of the other mishap causing conditions OTHER then landing on or within 1" of an enemy model?

Interesting that you only want a Mishap to represent a "good" thing when it allows a Terror of the Deep, but for all other reasons it is a "bad" thing.

If the Mawloc deep strikes off the table or into impassible terrain the standard mishap rules apply. The Mawloc's special mishap/Terror From the Deep only kicks in if it deep strikes onto a point occupied by another model.

The rules themselves state that a mishap is a good thing when it happens to a Mawloc/Terror From the Deep. Or are you trying to insinuate that the Tyranid player getting to inflict damage on his opponent is somehow 'bad' for him?

The rules do not state that it is a good thing when a Mawloc triggers a Terror of the Deep. Terror of the Deep is just what happens when a Mawloc triggers a mishap by scattering on or within 1" of an enemy model.

As I have pointed out several times, Terror of the Deep can ALREADY occur in-game with the odds of a scatter into or within 1" of an enemy unit. When the codex was released, there was already an in-game mechanic that allowed Terror of the Deep to occur.

A segment of the player base decided, based on their opinion of Mawloc's point cost versus value, that they were not happy with the existing in-game mechanic to allow Terror of the Deep and wanted to increase said odds of Terror of the Deep occurring by re-interpreting the rules.

With that in mind, it is IMO that Terror of the Deep was never an intended one trick pony that people have wanted it to become, but just what a Mawloc gets when he has to deal with a situation in which a mishap has occurred when Deep Striking on or within 1" of a model. It is a "well we got lemons, lets make lemonade" situation, not the tactical deep striking situation that people want it to be.

Brother Ramses wrote: The rules do not state that it is a good thing when a Mawloc triggers a Terror of the Deep. Terror of the Deep is just what happens when a Mawloc triggers a mishap by scattering on or within 1" of an enemy model.

You are the one that brought right or wrong, good and bad into the discussion as conditions for causing a mishap. Are you saying that it is still 'bad' for the player with a Mawloc to have Terror From the Deep trigger from a Mishap even though the results are clearly good for the player?

As I have pointed out several times, Terror of the Deep can ALREADY occur in-game with the odds of a scatter into or within 1" of an enemy unit. When the codex was released, there was already an in-game mechanic that allowed Terror of the Deep to occur.

Yes, and it is called Deep Striking. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that they can use Terror From the Deep whenever they want, only within the context of the existing Deep Strike rules.

A segment of the player base decided, based on their opinion of Mawloc's point cost versus value, that they were not happy with the existing in-game mechanic to allow Terror of the Deep and wanted to increase said odds of Terror of the Deep occurring by re-interpreting the rules.

They interpreted it in a way that is consistent with how GW has interpreted it in the past for other units where it is desirable to deep strike on top of an enemy unit.

With that in mind, it is IMO that Terror of the Deep was never an intended one trick pony that people have wanted it to become, but just what a Mawloc gets when he has to deal with a situation in which a mishap has occurred when Deep Striking on or within 1" of a model. It is a "well we got lemons, lets make lemonade" situation, not the tactical deep striking situation that people want it to be.

I'm not going to argue the validity of the unit, it's viable uses or point cost. I don't think they have any bearing on the actual rules.

Demogerg - yes, while Deep Strike is a special rule so is WBB. Which is why I asked you to consider what "specific" means in the context of the ruleset, and you ignored this request.

WBB states that, ANY TIME you remove as casualties you instead put them on the side. However SA states you remove the unit, unless a rule specifies otherwise.

Your argument is that a special rule, such as WBB, *always* overrides another general rule - however that is simply not how the game works. WBB does not override SA as SA states it must specify otherwise - and WBB does not do so. IN the same way the rules state you may not PLACE a model on impassable terrain unless a rule specifies otherwise - which JI does, and Deepstrike does NOT do.

So again, this is about specific vs general. The Deepstrike rule, despite being "special", does not in any way, shape or form provide a *specific* exemption tothe rule stating you may not place a model in impassable terrain.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Demogerg - yes, while Deep Strike is a special rule so is WBB. Which is why I asked you to consider what "specific" means in the context of the ruleset, and you ignored this request.

WBB states that, ANY TIME you remove as casualties you instead put them on the side. However SA states you remove the unit, unless a rule specifies otherwise.

Your argument is that a special rule, such as WBB, *always* overrides another general rule - however that is simply not how the game works. WBB does not override SA as SA states it must specify otherwise - and WBB does not do so. IN the same way the rules state you may not PLACE a model on impassable terrain unless a rule specifies otherwise - which JI does, and Deepstrike does NOT do.

So again, this is about specific vs general. The Deepstrike rule, despite being "special", does not in any way, shape or form provide a *specific* exemption tothe rule stating you may not place a model in impassable terrain.

Sweeping advance is an interesting case because the main rule book specifies that any special rule has to specify that it nullifies Sweeping Advance in order for it to do so. This actually leads more credit to my case because its the only normal rule that has this clause.

Demogerg wrote: That is a very good point when you consider the context of a special rule, however, something going "wrong" or "right" is entirely based on perspective.

It seems to be stated in the Mishap rule as something going wrong i.e. unplanned. If we are talking about the Deep Strike rule as a special rule and you are sighting a portion of the Deep Strike RAW of "place a model anywhere on the table", then I believe you also have to take the RAW of the Mishap portion of the rule into consideration along with it.

I do not believe this is a perspective question. If your stance is, "Deep Strike is a special rule that overrides the regular rules of the game" then I think you have to also apply the rules for "Mishap" which is a protion of "Deep Strike" is also overriding those same rules... to continue your argument. My statement is not verbatum from Mishap, but if you have the text please give it a read. It seems to be clear both when and how it occurs.

Also, the mishap portion of the rules gives a set of outcomes that is almost universally bad for the deep-striking unit,

We agree on this point. To my point earlier, Deep Strike is a Mission rule in the RB. It is a general rule written under general guidlelines of the missions. It also states when and how it happens.

I believe that is because a Mishap = a Mishappening... Mawloc or not - t's an event that was unintended. The rule itself describes exactly why and when such an event would occur. I do not believe we can ignore this portion of the rule if we are looking at Deep Strike. Yes, Mawloc uses Deep Strike, it just has a different Mishap result.

Since Mishap tells us what happens when you end up somewhere you are not supposed to be, and since it tells us how you can end up there... all as a portion of Deep Strike, then the logic would extend that you can only get there by a Mishap... after all, this is a permission based system.

You may deep strike, this is how it is done... etc.
You may place your model anywhere on the table... etc.
You may mishap, this is how it is done... etc.

The point in the logic is, the Deep Strike rule does not give us permission to intentionally Mishap. This is because you can only end up in the impassible terrain and the 1" of enemy as a result of mishap... that is, as a result of scatter... that is, as a result of something going wrong. This appears to be the RAW of Deep Strike with Mishap.

the unit in question regarding this arguement however ignores the Mishap table and has its own special rule that changes the outcome to be something positive.

Indeed, we agree again.

That is my point all along. The Unit is designed to forgo the ill effects of a Mishap. That is the unit's special rule!

I believe players are confusing the rules of Deep Strike to create an intentional Mishap because the unit in question has a different Mishap result.... However, the Unit in question DOES NOT give the player a special rule to create Mishaps more often... In fact, it simply affords the Tyranid player a different outcome *IF* a Mishap should occur.

This is indeed a significant bonus.

Tac

Brother Ramses wrote: words

Terror from the deep made us all reexamine the rules for deep striking, and I came to a conclusion that it IS allowed to deep strike "Anywhere" based on the rules as written and the logical processes that go into interpreting the rules.

You can disagree all you want, but I have presented a case that so far has yet to be refuted.

INAT agrees with this stance
Majority public opinion on this forum agrees with this stance
Fluff coincides with this stance
WD batrep coincides with this stance


On one hand you think that Tyranid players are reaching for more than what is allowed, and I say that you are on the other side of the coin panicing about a marginally useful ability that has a small chance to instagib something assuming you bunch up or position models poorly.

Brother Ramses wrote:The rules do not state that it is a good thing when a Mawloc triggers a Terror of the Deep. Terror of the Deep is just what happens when a Mawloc triggers a mishap by scattering on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Agreed

Brother Ramses wrote:As I have pointed out several times, Terror of the Deep can ALREADY occur in-game with the odds of a scatter into or within 1" of an enemy unit. When the codex was released, there was already an in-game mechanic that allowed Terror of the Deep to occur.

A little convoluted, but I think I know what you're getting at. Of course, because I think you're wrong about how Deep Strike works I disagree.

Brother Ramses wrote:A segment of the player base decided, based on their opinion of Mawloc's point cost versus value, that they were not happy with the existing in-game mechanic to allow Terror of the Deep and wanted to increase said odds of Terror of the Deep occurring by re-interpreting the rules.

This is a complete crock. It's quite a leap to say that a player segment arguing here is using the points vs. value of the model as the foundation of their argument. That's completely your opinion and has no basis in fact. Perhaps you could point to a few individuals offering that as an argument but in no way can you imply we all are.

Brother Ramses wrote:With that in mind, it is IMO that Terror of the Deep was never an intended one trick pony that people have wanted it to become, but just what a Mawloc gets when he has to deal with a situation in which a mishap has occurred when Deep Striking on or within 1" of a model. It is a "well we got lemons, lets make lemonade" situation, not the tactical deep striking situation that people want it to be.

So now you're in a position where you can definitively tell us what the intent of the TOTD ability is? We've all gone back and forth on this across multiple threads. We hope for an Errata on this, but at the very least I'll take a FAQ ruling. Till then, it's time to put this topic to rest.

-Yad

Mishaps being an indication of something going wrong is RAW from the BrB, not me.

Terror of the Deep is a positive result of something going wrong. How hard is that to understand? A mishap is a mishap is a mishap, no matter what occurs after it. The fact that the Mawloc has something special to deal with a mishap no way, shape or form changes that something has gone wrong in the Deep Strike process.

It is a fundamental difference in mindsets:

1. You want to disregard that a mishap even occurred since you want to specifically place the Mawloc on or within 1" to trigger the Terror of the Deep. To you everything has gone peachy so a mishap never occurred.

2. I want to acknowledge that a mishap did occur but am not worried about it since the Mawloc has a special rule to deal when such mishaps occur. I didn't intend to break the rules by placing the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model, but I scattered on to it, so luckily I have a rule that deals with that situation when it occurs. A mishap occurred, but I have a rule to deal with it, so everything is peachy.

Tactica wrote:I believe that is because a Mishap = a Mishappening... it's an event that was unintended. The rule itself describes exactly why and when such an event would occur. I do not believe we can ignore this portion of the rule if we are looking at Deep Strike.

Since Mishap tells us what happens when you end up somewhere you are not supposed to be, and since it tells us how you can end up there... all as a portion of Deep Strike, then the logic would extend that you can only get there by a Mishap... after all, this is a permission based system.

Do you believe that the conditions for having a Mishap are as follows?

1) Something must have gone horribly wrong.
2) The Deep Striking models are unable to be deployed because they are within 1" of enemy models, in impassible terrain or on top of friendly or enemy models.

How do you determine that something has gone wrong? Does something 'go wrong' if it's good for the player? Under this sort of loose interpretation a Mawloc could never have a Mishap because it's not going wrong for the unit as it is a good result that the player wants to happen. If a player intends to cause a mishap and the scatter dice play into his favor, is this no longer a mishap?

1 is just verbal garbage on it's own with no meaning. It only makes sense if you determine 'something has gone horribly wrong' to mean the situations specified in 2, and then 1 just becomes superfluous, flavor text.

Burger Rage wrote:<snip>
Do you believe that the conditions for having a Mishap are as follows?

<snip> How do you determine if something has gone wrong? <snip>

The Mishap portion of Deep Strike seems to be clear. I have nothing further to add.

Tac

I affirm that the Mawloc is designed and intended to DS directly onto enemy units. Without having to place next to them and hope for a good scatter.

I recognize that the text is somewhat ambiguous, and that this is a novel situation which contrasts with prior uses of the DS rules, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

GBF and I have a wager going. Are you going to be attending any GTs this year at which we might be able to exchange winnings for a similar wager?

Tactica: The DS rule stating that something is going wrong is covering the general case. With a Mawloc or Monolith DSing into an enemy unit, no mishap occurs.

Yad,

Me saying that "a segment of the player base" does not insinuate all of you. I specifically didn't even divide the issue up into "camps" this time since the argument has varied over issues such as "Movement Phase rules", "models does not equal table", "it is what he was designed to do" and yes even "he is a craptastic unit that needs this".

If you want, I will take the time once I get home to provide the quotes of those supporting the points versus usefulness, and even monetary price of the model.

Please note that I did use "IMO" which would denote my opinion, NOT a definitive position to tell you the intent of Terror of the Deep. I am basing my opinion on the interpretation of the rules and proof of circumstances that I hope to prove my interpretation.

Mannahnin wrote:<snip>

Tactica: The DS rule stating that something is going wrong is covering the general case. With a Mawloc or Monolith DSing into an enemy unit, no mishap occurs.

Agreed: Since the Mawloc and Monolith have rules for what else happens when an otherwise normal unit would Mishap, it doesn't mean they are permitted to create a Mishap situation... it just means, they have an alternative where other units do not when and *IF* a Mishap result would occur.

That is why this is a Deep Strike discussion, not a Mawloc or Monolith discussion. The RAW on those units are clear.

For the record, I stand by my comments posted on page 8.

As far as the wager: I would never do such a thing. Who knows what GW intended... but the entire point of this post is regarding INAT changing RAW for a particular unit, when Deep Striking is the real question requiring clarity. The comments for the Mawloc in the INAT FAQ should have stayed with:
1. "Large Blast Template" = "Large Blast Marker"
2. what happens when enemy models are moved to the edge of the Large Blast Marker but are still in range of the Mawloc's base after Terror From the Deep resolution.
3. Mawloc Regenerations while back in Reserve
4. Etc... that is, specific Mawloc issues.

Again, what I am talking about here is Deep Striking mechanics and whether or not those mechanics are additive or supercede the Movement Phase rules of the game as well as, what those rammifications are for those decisions.

Cheers,

Tac

Interesting.

I think these threads prove that this situation is anything but clear. I have nothing further to add.

Burger

Mannahnin wrote:Interesting.

Indeed.

Burger Rage wrote:

Tactica wrote:I believe that is because a Mishap = a Mishappening... it's an event that was unintended. The rule itself describes exactly why and when such an event would occur. I do not believe we can ignore this portion of the rule if we are looking at Deep Strike.

Since Mishap tells us what happens when you end up somewhere you are not supposed to be, and since it tells us how you can end up there... all as a portion of Deep Strike, then the logic would extend that you can only get there by a Mishap... after all, this is a permission based system.

Do you believe that the conditions for having a Mishap are as follows?

1) Something must have gone horribly wrong.
2) The Deep Striking models are unable to be deployed because they are within 1" of enemy models, in impassible terrain or on top of friendly or enemy models.

How do you determine that something has gone wrong? Does something 'go wrong' if it's good for the player? Under this sort of loose interpretation a Mawloc could never have a Mishap because it's not going wrong for the unit as it is a good result that the player wants to happen. If a player intends to cause a mishap and the scatter dice play into his favor, is this no longer a mishap?

1 is just verbal garbage on it's own with no meaning. It only makes sense if you determine 'something has gone horribly wrong' to mean the situations specified in 2, and then 1 just becomes superfluous, flavor text.

Again, just a completely different mindset.

I place my Mawloc 1" away from a tactical squad. I roll for scatter and distance which gets me an arrow towards the unit with a dice roll of 6. Something did go wrong with my deep strike. I intended my model to deep strike 1" away from the tactical squad and it didn't. I may have wanted the scatter to work in my favor, but my intended placement of the Mawloc did not happen and I am now faced with a mishap. Since the Mawloc has a rule, Terror of the Deep, that deal with this type of mishap, I am ok with it happening.

Do you understand? Something wrong still happens, just that the Mawloc has a rule to deal with it when it does. As you want it, you want Terror of the Deep to occur when something wrong happens and when something good happens.

But there is no functional difference between your example and;

Pointing to a spot on the table in the middle of a mess of troops and saying "My Mawloc is going to deep strike here". Rolling the scatter dice and getting a hit result, then resolving the Terror From the Deep.

The entire argument on 'something has gone wrong' = 'mishap' is actually moot because the Mawloc/Terror From the Deep completely bypass the Mishap rules. It doesn't say "If a Mawloc would cause a Mishap during Deepstrike do this", it says "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model". So you don't have to satisfy any of the conditions on the Mishap section of the Deep Strike rule in order for Terror From the Deep to apply, you only need to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by another model.

I have nothing further to add.

Burg

Brother Ramses wrote:Mishaps being an indication of something going wrong is RAW from the BrB, not me.

Terror of the Deep is a positive result of something going wrong. How hard is that to understand? A mishap is a mishap is a mishap, no matter what occurs after it. The fact that the Mawloc has something special to deal with a mishap no way, shape or form changes that something has gone wrong in the Deep Strike process.

It is a fundamental difference in mindsets:

1. You want to disregard that a mishap even occurred since you want to specifically place the Mawloc on or within 1" to trigger the Terror of the Deep. To you everything has gone peachy so a mishap never occurred.

2. I want to acknowledge that a mishap did occur but am not worried about it since the Mawloc has a special rule to deal when such mishaps occur. I didn't intend to break the rules by placing the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model, but I scattered on to it, so luckily I have a rule that deals with that situation when it occurs. A mishap occurred, but I have a rule to deal with it, so everything is peachy.

Sorry Bro Ram, but these are the worst arguments I've heard yet on this issue. Mawloc is a Terror From the Deep, not a Resourceful Git who Can Deal with Accidentally Coming up Under Folks. His special rules and especially the fact that he can reburrow clearly point to the fact that he intentionally bursts out from underneath at will and does his gribblies.

It's a tactical choice based on the situation, not a "we got lemons let's make lemonade", no matter how much you want it to be. It simply is NOT what the rules say.

Another comparison:

The Trygon rules state that if, when deepstriking, it SCATTERS onto impassable terrain, to reduce the scatter distance by the minimum amount to avoid the obstacle.
--THAT is a lemons/lemonade situation

The Mawloc rules state that if a mawloc deepstrikes onto a point occupied by an enemy model, the terror from the deep rules come in to effect.
--THAT is a tactical decision


If you're correct, BR, then why do the trygon's rules specifically mention when a scatter occurs, and the mawloc's rules don't? In fact, drop pods have the same wording, SPECIFICALLY referring to a scatter move before overriding the mishap table. Can you explain why the mawloc's rules don't?

Also, the Black Templar drop pod assault rules for placement specifically state: "You may place the drop pod anywhere on the table as long as it is not in impassable terrain or within 1" if an enemy model".

Now, if the deepstrike rules already prohibit this as some have incorrectly inferred from the rulebook, then why the special qualification here in the black templar codex? why not just say that the normal deepstrike placement rules are followed, or say that deepstrike occurs as normal. The reason is that drop pods arrive via a limited placement of the deepstrike rules, whereas deepstrike rules allow placement ANYWHERE, without qualification.

There's no more to argue unless you specifically answer:

1. Why the difference in wording between the mawloc and trygon rules.
2. Why do drop pod rules specifically state "anywhere on the table as long as it is not in impassable terrain or within 1" of an enemy model", while the deepstrike rules simply state "place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, where you would like the unit to arrive". Why do the drop pod placement rules specifically restrict placement when YOU claim that the deepstrike rules already have such restrictions in place? And why are those same restrictions not restated in the Mawloc's rules?

The answer to 2 is simple: Deepstrike allows you to place a model anywhere, which means anywhere, and drop pod rules don't. The Mawloc arrives via deep strike, and so he may be placed anywhere. Anywhere includes over impassable terrain or on top of other models.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Again, just a completely different mindset.

I place my Mawloc 1" away from a tactical squad. I roll for scatter and distance which gets me an arrow towards the unit with a dice roll of 6. Something did go wrong with my deep strike. I intended my model to deep strike 1" away from the tactical squad and it didn't. I may have wanted the scatter to work in my favor, but my intended placement of the Mawloc did not happen and I am now faced with a mishap. Since the Mawloc has a rule, Terror of the Deep, that deal with this type of mishap, I am ok with it happening.

Do you understand? Something wrong still happens, just that the Mawloc has a rule to deal with it when it does. As you want it, you want Terror of the Deep to occur when something wrong happens and when something good happens.

Nothing has gone wrong. The Deep Strike rules worked exactly as described. It's only 'wrong' if you don't like the outcome. Terror of the Deep let's you ignore a portion of the Deep Strike mechanic, namely the event of a mishap. There's no rightness or wrongness to this, it just is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Doh! Not fast enough

Still nothing specific in the term "Anywhere", it does not lend credence to your argument that "every" special rule always overrides any contradictory general rule. Specific is specific is specific, and "Anywhere" is NOT specific enough to override the rule stating you may not place a model in impassable terrain unless you havea rule *specifying* otherwise.

"Anywhere" does not, and cannot, specify that it overrides the placement into impassable terrain. This is not supprotable in the language.

The word "anywhere", in itself, is not the "specific" in this case of "specific vs. general". The rule, "Deep Strike", is the specific. It overrides the general rules under "Movement".

apwill4765 wrote:

Also, the Black Templar drop pod assault rules for placement via deepstrike specifically state: "You may place the drop pod anywhere on the table as long as it is not in impassable terrain or within 1" if an enemy model".

Now, if the deepstrike rules already prohibit this as some have incorrectly inferred from the rulebook, then why the special qualification here in the black templar codex? why not just say that the normal deepstrike placement rules are followed, or say that deepstrike occurs as normal. The reason is that drop pods arrive via a limited placement of the deepstrike rules, whereas deepstrike rules allow placement ANYWHERE, without qualification.

While I agree with pretty much everything you've posted thus far, I'd be careful about pulling in an old codex to support a 5th edition rule mechanic. Unless the language of this mechanic was identical back when the BT codex was current, I would only site it as something you could glean intent from. Other then that, right on all counts

-Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:Still nothing specific in the term "Anywhere", it does not lend credence to your argument that "every" special rule always overrides any contradictory general rule. Specific is specific is specific, and "Anywhere" is NOT specific enough to override the rule stating you may not place a model in impassable terrain unless you havea rule *specifying* otherwise.

"Anywhere" does not, and cannot, specify that it overrides the placement into impassable terrain. This is not supprotable in the language.

Helloooooo did you not read my last post, explain to me why then the drop pod rules specifically state that they may be placed "anywhere, as long as it is not in ompassable terrain or within 1 of an enemy model"

and the deepstrike rules do not have a similar qualification?