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.

I have started this thread so we can discuss the implications of deep striking various types of units indepth. First I will define two groups of deep striking units - Aggressive & Defensive. It would advantageous to initially place an aggressive unit on top of an enemy unit. There is no advantage to initially placing a defensive unit on top of an enemy unit.

The Monolith has special rules that apply when it deep strikes. The Mawloc does not, it's special rule (Terror from the Deep) occurs after you have resolved the scatter. It would be to your advantage to initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit so that if you roll a hit or small scatter then said enemy unit will takes wounds from underneath the big blast marker. Three years ago there was a ruling at a large event that you could initially place Forgeworld spore mines on top of enemy units when they entered from reserve via deep strike. The Forgeworld spore mines have a S5 AP3 large blast marker. The new Mawloc has a S6 AP2 large blast marker. The following year the ruling regarding initial placement of Forgeworld spore mines was reversed. Basically it is an advantage to initially place an aggressive deep striking unit on top of an enemy unit so they will take wounds as a result of being under the large blast marker.

An example of a defensive deep striking unit are terminators. You don't want to place them on top of an enemy unit because there is greater possibility they will suffer a mishap. The average scatter on 2d6 is 7". Therefore, if you initially place a unit of three or more terminators (40 mm base) the odds are they will suffer a mishap. Based on a lot of experience and simple geometry I have found that to minimize the chance of a mishap occurring you must place the first model (marker) from the deep striking unit such that it is at least 7" away from the edge of any other unit and impassable terrain. I have years of experience deep striking since I have played Deathwing, 13th Company, daemons and to a lesser degree Necrons. All of these armies include many units that should be defensively deep striked.

The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand. If someone states they can initially place the deep striking unit on top of another unit then in my mind they want to be able to aggressively deploy units such as the Mawloc since the odds are much greater the large blast marker will cover some of the enemy unit. If anybody states that they want to initially place a defensive deep striking unit such as terminators on top of another unit or impassable terrain because they tend to roll large scatters then they are ignoring simple odds in favor of intuition. Odds are you will scatter 7" and one third of the time you won't scatter (that is, you'll roll a hit), so most often you will suffer a mishap if you were to initially place the deep striking unit on top of an enemy unit.

In closing going back to the Mawloc I originally said that the Mawloc does not have a special rule regarding deep strike but that is not completely the case so I'll cover it here. The Mawloc special rule Terror from the Deep does not state you can initially place the model on top of another unit or impassable terrain BUT it's special rule does state that the Mawloc does not suffer a mishap, you replace the blast marker with the Mawloc after all wounds have been resolved and/or removed from the table.

So in conclusion my interpration is that you cannot initially place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit when deep striking.

G

I'm confused by your argument, since you appear to have invented a distinction with the singular purpose of allowing the Monolith to deep strike on top of an enemy unit while preventing the Mawloc from doing the same. The Monolith's special rule kicks in "if there are enemy within 1" when it arrives." That means that both the Monolith and Mawlock's special rules trigger AFTER the roll for scatter.

I'd also like to take issue with your treatment of the statistics of deep strike. Depending on how large of a unit is being deep struck, and how large the targeted model is, various deep striking units would in fact arrive safely more than half of the time. The distance that a 40mm base would have to move to safely land if targetting a 25mm base would be 0.5" + 1" + 20mm = about 2.5". So a safe landing would be a 3 or higher on 2D6. Given that a scatter result happens two thirds of the time, a single terminator sized base would be perfectly safe 22/36 or about 61% of the time. Or rather:
- Safe but out of weapon range: 18.5%
- Safe and in weapon range: 42.5%
- Mishap: 39%

Moving on the unit I would most likely try to deep strike on top of something else, a unit of four or less flamers would be completely safe two thirds of the time if it targeted a single model, or at worst completely safe 61% of the time if dealing with bases fractionally larger than 1". (I can't quite work out the geometry in my head to see whether a 5th flamer would fit or not...). The probability distribution is harder to work out, but it's something like:
- Direct hit: 33%
- Scattering 8+" in the "away" hemisphere: 2/3 * 15/36 * 1/2: 13%
- Scattering 7-" in the "away" hemisphere: 2/3 * 21/36 * 1/2: 19.44%

That's leaving out the "towards" hemisphere, the odds of scattering over the target model, and the odds of scattering over the target model.

It's clear that it's "safer" to deep strike next to a target unit rather than on top of a target model, but deep striking on top of a unit is only approximately as risky as deep striking into difficult terrain without an invulnerable save. Death due to Dangerous Terrain: 1 in 6. Destruction due to placement on enemy model: 13%. (Only 1 in 3 mishaps is immediately fatal).

Disclaimer: Please take two pinches of salt when viewing these statistics because I can't remember how long the flame template is at the moment, and I'm not double checking my work. I merely wish to point out that the idea of deep striking flamers on top of an enemy unit is interesting and not necessarily a foolish idea.

Some other not scientificall done maths, but the numbers aren't actually that bad.

ChrisCP wrote:
Assuming 'best for mishap' unit distibution,
Assuming a Mawlocs base to be 7.5cm-ish,
Now let a squad of say 5 terminators be standing around they'd easily occupy a space of 17cm across the board and 8cm deep - Giving a mishap range of ~20cm, by ~10cm.

Now 1/3rd of the time the 'Loc is going to hit, and not go anywhere (no mishap)

The remaining 2/3rds of the time scatter comes into play.

The Terminators with the mawloc as close as possible have an 'arc' of about 120-135 where it would head towards them.

With the assumption in consideration any #on the scatter distance would cause the mishap.

So (2/3)*(135/360) Gives us a ~25% chance for what the 'Loc player would want - not that bad actually.

Greenblowfly wrote:The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand.

Simple and easy it may be, but this assumption is 100% incorrect. If impassable terrain is "not on the table", then when my skimmer lands on top of impassable terrain, it is not on the table? Therefore, it cannot be targeted for shooting or count for scoring. Good to know.

BRB:

"A skimmer can even end its move over impassable terrain" pg 71.

So if your assumption is correct and a skimmer ends its move over impassable terrain, it would not longer be on the table.

It's really a VERY simple abstraction to know what "on the table" means. The deepstrike rules state anywhere on the table. In this situation the rule is not referring to the actual physical plane of the battlefield, meaning you must set it literally "on the table". In this case it means anywhere within the field of play. Now, before you say "oh well then I will deploy 15 inches above the table!", this is obviously not legal. There are two cases that result from placing deepstriking units on other units.

1. A hit or short scatter is rolled and a mishap occurs. Normal units roll the mishap table, and do not actually land on other units. The Mawlocs damages the unit with the survivors being moved out of the way.

2. A long scatter is rolled and the unit is placed as normal.

Neither of these cases requires the mawloc or any units actually be placed on top of other models.

The whole point of the mawloc is that it erupts from underneath to devour those units above it, not so that it will occasionally damage units it accidently comes up under. The mawloc is SUPPOSED to burrow underneath units.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand.

Since you are still basing the core of your argument on this (or so it seems) I will repost what I did in the other tread for consistency.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:No what the rule says is place the model on the table.

G

EXACTLY!, NOT enemy models, NOT hills, NOT on the base of an area terrain piece, NOT on the felt game mat, ONLY on the table...

If you aren't playing on something that can be called a table, you can't deep strike at all obviously.

First I'll reiterate that the odds are you'll suffer a mishap if you place a unit on top of another unit. Consider a squad of three deep striking Chaos terminators... 40 mm is equal to 1.4", so the footprint is 4.2" across the three models. There is 33% chance you'll roll a hit which will automatically result in a mishap. The average scatter is 7". For the sake of this example suppose you place the terminators on top and centered on a squad of 10 Marines each 1" apart. If you scatter 7" or less you will suffer a mishap, in fact you could actually scatter more and suffer a mishap.

If GW intended for you to be able to place the Mawloc on top of an enemy unit then the Terror from the Deep rule would have said as much.

G

Not if they thought it was so obvious that it didn't need mentioning. Or if it had been ruled the other way before, like with spore mines. Oh wait. . .


If it was supposed to only happen accidentally, then the rule would be called "Oh crap, what is this stuff over my head? Oh well, I'll surface anyway"

It's not called that, it's called "Terror from the Deep"

The mawloc has rules to reburrow, because the only real perk to taking him is his bursting from the ground power.

Also, you did not address my skimmer argument, which pretty much destroys the crux of yours. So you should do that.

Your skimmer argument does not pass the validity test so why bother? Basically you are advocating for Rules as I Want Them To Be (RAIWTTB).

G

IMO the Mawloc is meant to work the same way as Spore Mines. Put the marker/model over the enemy unit as you wish.

So wait.. your saying you cant pick a stop on the table that is occupied by something else?

Rules as I Want Them to be (RAIWTTB).

If that's the case then GW can sort it when theY release the FAQ.

G
.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Your skimmer argument does not pass the validity test so why bother? Basically you are advocating for Rules as I Want Them To Be (RAIWTTB).

G

Kinda, since RAIWTTB just happens to be RAW, where as RAWWTTB (rules as whiners want them to be) often aren't.

Also, do tell, how does my skimmer argument not pass the validity test?

Your main argument is that you cannot place over enemy models for this reason, even though deepstriking states "anywhere":

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rules for deep striking state that you must place the unit on the table. Other units and impassable terrain are not the table

However, skimmers routinely end their movement over impassable terrain. So if this is not "on the table" how do skimmers land there?

It's convenient that my argument, which completely leaves you with no RAW leg to stand on, doesn't pass the mystical "validity test".

So please, do tell me where this example breaks down? Because really, YOUR argument doesn't pass the validity test, but I still took the time to tell you why

You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

G

In that case, if the Mawloc was a skimmer it could deepstrike over enemy units. lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
See, the problem isn't that the argument doesn't hold up to the mawloc example, it just breaks down because of skimmers. If models that were over impassable terrain were not "on the table", then skimmers that end up on impassable terrain would not be "on the table".

Goddammit, this is a tricky subject :-) GBF, do you consider "on top of _passable_ terrain" to be "on table"? Because I really believe it is. And if that is, then I believe "on top of impassable terrain" is also on the table. It might be a place on the table where only skimmers and jump infantry can be placed, but I still think it is "on the table". I understand that you do not reason the way I do, so perhaps you could explain your view to me? I'd really like to understand, because this is just the way I've been doing things for years, so I might well have missed something :-)

And I am also curious about how a deepstriking skimmer or jump infantry could be placed. Could I put it on top of impassable terrain with the deepstrike? Would it be "on the table" then? I would certainly have to roll dangerous terrain tests...

Have you EVER seen anyone place a squad of terminators on top of an enemy unit when deep striking? I really am looking forward to reading the gak reasons why people supposedly did.

G

Terminators don't have a special rule that destroys whatever they land on, back to your apples and my oranges.

Not really and it's obvious you are not following all the pertinent discussions related to this subject.

G

The thing is, just because you might not have a reason to do so, does not mean that they cannot do it, which is what GBF seems to be arguing, despite Spore Mines and Monoliths doing so (and having a reason to) for years now.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Have you EVER seen anyone place a squad of terminators on top of an enemy unit when deep striking? I really am looking forward to reading the gak reasons why people supposedly did.

G

Wow. Really? . . . ok . . .

So we aren't really arguing rules anymore, should this be moved to the 40k tactics forum?

To answer your question: Of course not. However, if there were a case that it was tactically advantageous for a unit of terminators to deepstrike onto an enemy unit, I'm sure I would have seen that. Best case scenario when deepstriking termies onto an enemy is that they scatter off. More than likely you will lose that 200+ pts unit. Does this mean it is against the rules? No. It just means it is against the better senses of those who deepstrike terminators.


Seriously, what possible relevance could your post have to this argument.

Deep striking, according to GBF.
1. Units can only DS onto impassable terrain if they are skimmers, because skimmers say they can move onto impassable terrain.
2. Units must DS onto the table. They may not DS anywhere else (this includes the grass, your base, area terrain bases, etc.).

GBF, don't dismiss arguments with "apples to oranges" and "doesn't pass the validity test". Actually create proof.
A good argument only knocks down an opposing statement with contradicting proof. You are knocking down an argument with dismissal. This results in the argument being continually presented.

Haven't followed all the many threads on the Mawloc because they were too tedious.

In my interpretation the Terror From The Deep rule is to allow the Mawloc to 'deep strike' right on an enemy unit, representing the emergence of the monstrous creature literally under the target's feet, causing much grimdarkness and gnashing of teeth. This is exactly the way a 40K codex designer's mind works.

Also, my interpretation of 'on the table' is that the unit is not placed off the table, meaning outside the boundary of the playing area.

Kilkrazy wrote:Haven't followed all the many threads on the Mawloc because they were too tedious.

In my interpretation the Terror From The Deep rule is to allow the Mawloc to 'deep strike' right on an enemy unit, representing the emergence of the monstrous creature literally under the target's feet, causing much grimdarkness and gnashing of teeth. This is exactly the way a 40K codex designer's mind works.

Also, my interpretation of 'on the table' is that the unit is not placed off the table, meaning outside the boundary of the playing area.

As most sane rational people would interpret the rule, yes.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not really and it's obvious you are not following all the pertinent discussions related to this subject.

G

Unfortunately no. So many threads have been cross-pollinated it's impossible to follow all of the discussions related to the subject. I'd also like to thank the previous few posters for saying what I was too lazy to say.

Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

Green Blow Fly wrote:Not really and it's obvious you are not following all the pertinent discussions related to this subject.

G

Wow talk about a typical illogical argument... You don't agree with me so therefore your proof (which by the way I have shown none of supporting my argument) is not pertinent.

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

I don't see any side winning anything.

mikhaila wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

I don't see any side winning anything.

Maybe you didn't notice, but GBF's last argument was:

"Hey, if terminators never do it, why should the Mawloc?"


. . . newsflash, that's a lost argument.

EDIT: BRB job interview.

[thread]

apwill4765 wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Dammit Klawz, I knew I shouldn't have flocked the gaming board...now I can't deep strike any troops!

And they called me crazy when I sculpted my gaming table out of a single block of Black Obsidian from the Pits of Doom™ with little more than a Diamond Tipped Spork in the Darkness, Crazy! They called me Insane when I refused to paint it or put flock on it, INSANE!

I knew I would be vindicated someday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/thread.

I think we're done here. Until someone asks again tomorrow and the argument has to be won all over again.

I don't see any side winning anything.

Maybe you didn't notice, but GBF's last argument was:

"Hey, if terminators never do it, why should the Mawloc?"


. . . newsflash, that's a lost argument.

EDIT: BRB job interview.

[/thread]