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.

To the INAT FAQ guys (not to the masses...)

I am disappointed with the FAQ counsel. You did not take the opportunity to answer Deep Strike specifically in the Organizing a Battle section. However, you did take the space to include, "Q: Can a Mawloc attempt to arrive via Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit? A: Yes it may [clarification]." If you were going to make this call, I would have thought you would have supported the ruling with some amount of logical thought process suppporting the decison.

To elaborate, I am disappointed because...

1. The question is not whether a Mawloc can place it's model for arrival over enemy units. The question is whether any model in any army can arrive on top of enemy models intentionally.

2.The Tyranid Mawloc has special rules which allow it to override the Mishap rule. It has a special rule for burrowing. However, it follows the NORMAL Deep Strike rules for arrival and placement. Thus, any clarification would have made sense to the normal Deep Strike rules section.

3. With all the discussion over this topic, do you feel the topic warranted a bit more of an explanation on this "clarification" than a three word single sentence response to a specific Tyranid model question?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/277249.page (5 pages, 24 hours, locked!)
http://www.adeptuswindycity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4762 (Full Disclosure: I started this thread as well)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242612
http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/tyranids/186699-mawlocs-deep-strike.html
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?s=1ed51b90337f64f8719469f1e60bf850&t=4606 (21 pages and locked!)
http://forum.warpshadow.com/viewtopic.php?t=13509&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=43974bac24529f3f63a7127685e08859
http://splinterfaction.bigforumpro.com/warhammer-40k-f3/mawloc-question-t2796.htm
http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=Tactics&thread=23446&page=1#429490
http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2010/01/mawloc-can-it-or-cant-it.html
http://forums.tauonline.org/index.php?topic=92370.15
http://www.stonypointrefugees.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1805
http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=195363.0

4. The clarification for Mawloc seems to manufacture a special rule specifically for the aforementioned Tyranid model. Thus remaining silent on the outstanding Deep Striking rules and allowing the Tyranid model to ignore various issues that were raised around Deep Striking in general, such as:

- the deep strike requirement to place a model on the table as a placeholder, not on top of any enemy model that's on the field...
- the 1" rule that is supposed to be observed at all times - unless assaulting...
- placing a model for the target deep strike location occuring in the movement phase...
- deep strike arrival counting as movement...
- three phases of the player turn (movement, shooting, assault)...
- models may not occupy the same space as other models...
- the no holding models in place or approximating locations of models, i.e. they must sit on the field of battle on their own...

Example: How does placing a model from your unit onto the field for Deep Strike place holder equate to the 3.2 INAT Mawloc clarification of Deep Strike on top of an enemy unit? Is placing a model on the field the same as placing a model on an enemy model?

Example: In order to follow the INAT 3.2 clarification and follow Deep Strike RAW, wouldn't you have to place your mawloc on top of the plastic Eldar or the Forgeworld IG Resin... or some other army models?

Example: If your model will not support itself and stand in place while ... 'resting' on the other enemy models that are on the table, can it be placed there?

Example: If someone has a beautifully sculpted, hand painted Golden Deamon or otherwise fragile army, but he's playing against a guy with 3 units of 1 Mawloc, and the Tyranid player wants to set his Mawlocs on top the Golden Daemon quality army, how does the Tyranid player observe the INAT clarification, not break the RAW of placing a model from your unit onto the field as a placeholder and do so without pissing his opponent off or breaking the opponent's models?

To be clear, my disappointment is that you missed an opportunity. Wether I agree with your interpretation or not, you failed to explain your decision. The decision you made *seems* to ignore other raised facts which *seem* to have weight in the discussion. Finally, your resulting 'clarification' was not placed in the correct section of the FAQ in my opinion.

Thank you for reading,

Tac

If you don't like it, don't use it.

Exactly. INAT is not law, just suggestion.

Why can't you understand that you don't HAVE to balance your model on top of another model. Just call the Wobbly Model Rule, until they are all out of the way.

More QQ... haaar!

G

@T:

What you're missing is the fact that the INAT.FAQ is not an all out RAW-fest.

It's designed to make the game playable and to avoid units/models having unusable rules as much as possible. Obviously, since the FAQ committee decided to rule in this fashion in this instance, they believed that this ruling was the best compromise between rules and playability for THEIR tournament.

Also, the FAQ in question does not usually go into long, drawn out explanations as to why they ruled in a given manner. If they did so, then the FAQ would be significantly longer than it is without adding anything of substantive value to the document.

it is far from the most outrageous ruling they've made (see Hive Commander totally ludicrous, ignoring RAW and RAI just to make the Nids weaker).

Also there seems to be confusions in your points. The 1" rule pertains to movement. the Mawloc doesn't count as move until it has actually arrived from DS and without this ruling the modle would be entirely useless. It certainly follows RAI and probably follows RAW so why all the fuss?

So yes now you can intentionally DS you assault squad onto that enemy unit. Obviously you just have to hope you scatter off them or you mishap. Granted try this with a DP and the game just blows up but hey.

FlingitNow wrote:Granted try this with a DP and the game just blows up but hey.

Lol. This one sentence has just proven you have no idea how the rules work.

A Drop Pod REDUCES scatter. If you Drop Pod directly onto an enemy model, you cannot reduce the scatter to avoid it, so it Deep Strike Mishaps.

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?

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.

Hurray for yakface, purveyor of fine FAQS and reasonable rulings.

Are you participating in games this year? or are you a judge/babysitter?

This isn't the only instance of this either. White Dwarf a few months ago had a planet strike strategy add on section. The Orks was called 'It's Raining Orks'

In this strategy, the Ork player got something like 1d6+3 Orks (generic choppa slugga boyz) that deep strike as independant units (each Ork was a seperate unit). If the Ork lands on an enemy unit, instead of a mishap the Ork is based in B2B and counts as assaulting and strikes at Initiative 10 for that round.

Clearly, the intention of both this rule and the Mawloc's rule is to intentionally deepstrike onto a unit. Arguments to the contrary is just obstinate and indeed, QQ

Lol. This one sentence has just proven you have no idea how the rules work.

A Drop Pod REDUCES scatter. If you Drop Pod directly onto an enemy model, you cannot reduce the scatter to avoid it, so it Deep Strike Mishaps

Good point well made. I'll go back to my bridge

Yakface,

First let me say, I only voiced the critisism because I value the INAT FAQ counsel's opionion. I use the INAT FAQ as an aid or tool in the hobby I enjoy. I appreciate the effort that must go into creating and maintaining the document(s). I also consider it one of the leading compilations to be used in tandum with the official GW books and FAQs. Overall, I think you've once again put together a great tool. I like the addition of the appendix and having a full list of all IA models along with their current rule location is handy. Perhaps I should have said as much in the original post...

Next, I believe in the benefits from constructive critisism and intelligent discussion. Thank you for taking the time to provide a courteous, intelligent and detailed response. Whether I agree or not with the conclusion, it does help me understand the intent and perspective from which the counsel came to the conclusions it did and why updates were placed in specific sections.

Final thought, I look forward to any update to the Deep Strike general rule - cheers in advance for the consideration.

Happy gaming,

Tac

Kroot Loops wrote:
Clearly, the intention of both this rule and the Mawloc's rule is to intentionally deepstrike onto a unit. Arguments to the contrary is just obstinate and indeed, QQ

"Clearly" my *%€&. Please do not use "clear intention" and GW in the same sentence.

As usual the fault lies with GW. If they really intended every unit between Heaven and Hot Place to be able to intentionally target Deep Strikes on enemy units, they should have made it crystal clear in the rules.

Would you as military commander, condone this kind of tactic? When you know that it is almost a guaranteed suicide for the unit involved? Unless something actually goes wrong with the plan ( scatter ). You would be executed for gross incompetence and treason. Picture this. You are an Astartes Brother-Sergeant sent to squash a rebellion. The ship has reached orbit just as the rebels are overrunning the loyalist positions down on the planet. In order to facilitate a last minute rescue, the resident Tech-Priest says he can send you down via teleport.
"Wonderful!" you say.
"Yes, Sir. In order to maximize the shock effect of your arrival, we will calibrate the coordinates to coincide with those of the heretics".
"Err...Excuse me but do you mean we will emerge right in the middle of the enemy unit?"
"Exactly."
"But that means my squad will be destroyed!"
"Oh, do not worry. We actually count on the 35.657% error margin to scatter you off the exact enemy center point."
"......Brother Petronius! Execute this traitor immediately!"

I've always thought drop pods should be able to attempt to land on enemy units and cause damage when they "hit." It matches with their fluff.

Yes, because Mawlocs will get a severe talking to by the Norn Queen when they get back I assume?

To the masses that had insulting, or demeaning comments,

I wish you would have taken a more constructive stance, but this is a public forum. We are all entitled to our opinons.

I understand the FAQ counsel believes there are GW precidents for allowing models to deep strike onto enemy units. I understand they felt that the language requiring a player to place a model on the table is generic and not specific. However, I think my OP about the lost opportunity is on point. I think the question in play is a general question about Deep Strike. If you don't like that I've asked the question, you are free not to read my post... but posting QQ is less than helpful.

In the Mawloc's case, I think most agree the model Deep Strikes as normal. It has a special mishap if something goes wrong. Furthermore, I don't think the Deep Strike rule is confused by most players - but that is the real debate... what is normal for deep striking? That's where the detailed technical discussion starts and thus the conundrum. If the Deep Strike rule by most players is understood that you must place your model on the table and you don't place models on enemy models, then why the interpretation result that they landed on. It *seems* a fair question. Perhaps this is an American perspective, but when I see something I don't like or agree with, I challenge it.

If you are genuinely interested in *my* perspecitve, I think it's generally better to error to the side of caution when making 'clarifications' in FAQs. I think sticking as close to RAW allows for the most common ground amongst all players.

In my opinion, the conservative interpretation of the Tyranid Mawloc and the RB's Deep Strike rule would have been....

- Tyranid Mawloc Deep Strikes pursuant to the normal rules, but notably it has a special Mishap result special rule when/if that should happen. (RAW)

- The RB says to place a placeholder model from your unit onto the table to identify the intended point you wish to Deep Strike (RAW),

- The Deep Strike rule says the result of unit placement from Deep Strike (after scatter is rolled) is movement. (RAW)

- The Deep Striking placeholder is interpreted as the point you wish to ultimately move, i.e. this is your intended movement point should you get a 'hit' result (RAI)

- The 1" rule says you cannot intentionally move within 1" of the enemy unless you are assaulting. (RAW)

- There are three phases to the game, Movement, shooting and assault - Deep Strike happens in the movement phase. (RAW)

- Since the result of Deep Striking is a unit that has moved, the act of placing a place holder and the subsequent scatter are done in the movement phase and acts of movement (RAI)

- The Mishap explanation says you may only Mishap when something has gone (RAW)

- Therefore, you cannot Mishap when something has gone "right" or as planned. (RAI)

In summary, a conservative interpretation would have been, placing a model within 1" or ontop of enemy is NOT placing a model on the table. Doing so is intentionally violating the 1" rule violation of the 1" rule since Deep Striking does count as movement. Trying to cause a Mishap is a plan, it is not something going wrong aka a MISHAP. Since the Mawloc Deep Strikes as normal per the RB rules, it cannot be intentionally placed any closer than 1" to enemy models. Should a Mawloc mishap, it has a special rule.

I understand the FAQ console's perspective, but I cannot agree with the conclusion. I cannot reconsile why the counsel decided to overlook some of the core concepts of the 40K game in their decision with these deep striking specific unit interpretations. However, I will try to abide by them in lieu of an appeal to the ruling.

I honestly do think they made the wrong call here. Since I value the INAT FAQ as a tool, I reserve the right to voice my disappointment. I also reserve the right to plead for a repeal or reversal of the ruling. If they listen, great. If they don't, I'm glad I tried.

As previously stated, I applaud the overall compendium of information. I think the INAT FAQ is an increadibly powerful asset for many gamers out there. Even if I respectfully disagree with them here and wish they would reconsider their ruling, I do value the effort and final product.

To those that would respond with "Then don't use it... QQ... or the like mannered comments." I can only say, I appreciate your feedback and thank you for voicing your perspective as well.

I've said my peace. Even if you do not agree with my perspective, hopefully I've explained my point of view and perspective - if you were genuinely interested.

This will be my final comment on this thread.

Tac

Tactica I have a question for you and I agree with your RAW in the most part. I'd argue that the rule state on page 14 a model can't be placed on impassible terrain (which other models are), so by that rule you can't place a model on top of another for DS whether or not the placing part is considered movement.

However what I don;t understand is what you think the Mawloc is for. It has only 3 attacks and WS3 so is no great shakes in close combat and everyone agrees it's only threat comes from the DS attack. If you can not intentionally aim this at a unit what is the point of it? why have an attack that you can not directly aim at the enemy?

That is why people are saying QQ (not me) it is not that you are wrong on RAW it is that the model has a clear purpose and you are claim the enemy must hope this purpose happens by accident and the model can't use it's sole purposeful attack deliberately. which seems a pretty odd conclusion you must admit.

Don't think of this as can units DS on top of other units intentionally think of it as what use is the Mawlocs attack if it can not be aimed at the enemy?

FAQ counsel aside, the problem IMHO arises from the player base.

The Mawloc unit introduced a mechanic into the game that encouraged attempts to get mishaps. A portion of the player base then looked within the rules to find out how they could rules lawyer/rules twist/whatever to increase chances for mishap and now want to present it as RAW and that it was possible all along.

I really wonder just what percentage of said player base would have looked at the rules to increase mishaps had the Mawloc unit and game mechanic for dealing with mishaps rolls had never been introduced.

Nice points you bring up Tactica and sadly when an FAW/Errata for the Tyranid codex does come out, if the Mawloc issue is only issued a FAQ, there will be plenty of people that will then just dismiss it out of hand as house rules and continue to try to increase their mishap chance.

Brother Ranses are you genuinely telling me that GW intentional wrote the Mawloc rules such that it could not target enemy units?

If it is FAQed then there is only one way it is going to go and that is that the Mawloc can atarget enemy units because it is totally pointless if it can't.

Considering that the special attack ONLY happens on a MISHAP, yes, I would consider that GW wrote the rule for it to only happen in the event of a MISHAP.

Considering that the special attack ONLY happens on a MISHAP, yes, I would consider that GW wrote the rule for it to only happen in the event of a MISHAP.

Do you genuinely beleive GW created an attack that costs 170 points that you can't aim at your enemies?

You really beleive this? Will you accept the FAQ when it comes out if it covers this question? Cause I can 100% guarantee you GW will not rule that their shiney new £30 model isn't entirely useless.

I think he's running along the same logic as Tactica in that since it is called a 'Mishap' and the rulebook states it means 'something has gone wrong' you can't intentionally cause one, since if you do it means it's gone correctly and thus invalidate it.

So much read into that little phrase.

I think he's running along the same logic as Tactica in that since it is called a 'Mishap' and the rulebook states it means 'something has gone wrong' you can't intentionally cause one, since if you do it means it's gone correctly and thus invalidate it.

So much read into that little phrase.

I'm not saying he is wrong on RAW I'm justr asking why an attack would exist that can't be intentionally aimed at the enemy. Why you have to aim elsewhere and hope you miss and it lands on target.

Yes the attack occurs instead of a mishap but the whole point of the Mawloc is the attack so it should be possible to intentionally aim it at the enemy.

I really don't understand why people think GW would create an attack that can't be intentionally aim at the enemy. I haven't seen anyone come up with a reason as to why on earth they would and I certainly can't fathom one.

Why do you think the Mawloc is allowed to re-burrow? So you get as many chances to get a lucky scatter as possible.

I think it's feasible to believe that GW wrote a rule that takes advantage of a mishap, and they would have thought it fun to have a unit that you intentionally try to mishap in order to see the chaos it causes.

However, being the industrious opportunists that we are, we saw the inch and decided to take the yard. Yes, the rule is written so that you try to get a mishap. No, I don't think the rule is written for you to get it the majority of the time. It's just supposed to be a fun effect that happens every 3 turns or so with a lucky scatter. That's why it re-burrows.

FlingitNow wrote:Brother Ranses are you genuinely telling me that GW intentional wrote the Mawloc rules such that it could not target enemy units?

This isn't the best logic to support your position, Flingit. No one knows how they designed it, until they release the FAQ. Sure, we can all see that it would work more efficiently to DS directly onto units in order to increase your chances, but there's a difference between how GW writes a rule to work and how a rule works best. Sometimes the most efficient way is not allowed by the rules.

Burger, not so much that it is "something has gone wrong" but that by game design (scatter dice) a mishap is a chance occurrence as a result of deep striking. By allowing what Fling proposes you are now changing a chance occurrence into a planned occurrence by increasing the chances of it happening.

By your logic Fling, my 500pt/$50 wolf guard unit in TDA should be able to assault after deep striking since they cost so much in RL money and game points.

In addition, the model is str 6, toughness 6, and 6 wounds Is all that wasted for a model only intent on targetted "deep striking"? He can also get Furious Charge, Poisoned Attacks, and Regeneration. So more then just a tactical mishap model.

Some times, it's GW fault. This time? It's the community.

You don't want me to use clearly? Very well. The only benefit that Mawloc has over the Trygon is it's Terror from the Deep rule (Notice it's not called Accident from the Deep). To say that this effect only happens by accident is.. well.. I'm not sure what to call it politely, perhaps a minutia obsessed point of view.

As for:

Why do you think the Mawloc is allowed to re-burrow? So you get as many chances to get a lucky scatter as possible.

I rather think it's so it can get as many chances to use it's special attack as possible. (which, by the way, is twice in a five round match, and 3 in a six or seven round match. However most players report their Mawloc doesn't survive after the first emergence)

The Terror from the deep rule even says 'if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model', not 'if a Mawloc scatters onto a point occupied by another model'

the exasperated responses to this is probably because it certainly appears to be a straw grasping argument from those who don't want to face the prospect of castle disruption or the vulnerability of troops/heavy support pill boxed in terrain.

Burger, not so much that it is "something has gone wrong" but that by game design (scatter dice) a mishap is a chance occurrence as a result of deep striking. By allowing what Fling proposes you are now changing a chance occurrence into a planned occurrence by increasing the chances of it happening.

By your logic Fling, my 500pt/$50 wolf guard unit in TDA should be able to assault after deep striking since they cost so much in RL money and game points.

In addition, the model is str 6, toughness 6, and 6 wounds Is all that wasted for a model only intent on targetted "deep striking"? He can also get Furious Charge, Poisoned Attacks, and Regeneration. So more then just a tactical mishap model.

I don't see the logic behind allowing the wolfguard to assault after DS. It is more like allowing the wolfguard to assault the enemy when they can assault rather than have them assault in arandomn direction and hope there are some enemy in the way.

The T6 and W6 are to ensure he can try to make his attack more than once. Poisoned atatcks makes him weaker and furious charge with WS3 and A3 is not scary your wolfguard unit would murder him.

The unit as no value to eth army beyond it's deep strike attack, that is hwy it can re-burrow and why you would do that every turn. using it for anything else is pointless.

I think it's feasible to believe that GW wrote a rule that takes advantage of a mishap, and they would have thought it fun to have a unit that you intentionally try to mishap in order to see the chaos it causes.

But would they design an entire 170 unit who's only function is to do that?

This isn't the best logic to support your position, Flingit. No one knows how they designed it, until they release the FAQ. Sure, we can all see that it would work more efficiently to DS directly onto units in order to increase your chances, but there's a difference between how GW writes a rule to work and how a rule works best. Sometimes the most efficient way is not allowed by the rules.

True but GW intentions here are pretty clear to anyone that isn't deliberately trying to pervert them. Just like Bjorn's save which by RAW is entirely useless, we all know what it does. Like the Doom's 3++ save again we know what it does. Like we know the Swarmlord counts as a tyrant for his psychic powers so that paroxysm doesn't last forever.

Aye, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers here, fellas. Just trying to provide a different point of view. I'm completely fine with playing a Tyranid playing and allowing the deep strike to target a unit.

I see the arguments, but when I first read the rule that's how I thought it worked (no targeting units). My mind's just a hard one to change, but I'll come around in a month or so...