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.

Well I will now begrudgingly concede my point that a Mawloc cannot initially be placed on or within 1" of an enemy model. My disagreement is not based on being worried about the tactic but the obscure writing of Terror of the Deep and what seems to be a not very well play-tested use of the in-game scatter mechanic to be used for Terror of the Deep.

From the new WD362:

Mawlocs:

What could be better than a giant deep-striking monstrous creature? One that devours a whole squad the instant it arrives onto the tabletop. To maximize the damage caused as a Mawloc emerges try positioning a Lictor or two close to your targets. Thanks to the Lictor's pheromone trail, deep-striking Mawlocs won't scatter as they emerge under their prey's feet - gulp!

This is from the Tyranids Tactica article in the issue and while there is a good case against Battle Reports, I find it fairly more solid that Cruddace and two of his "hardened" playtesters wrote this article which explain legal tactica.

As you can see by the tactica, a pheromone trail would prevent a Mawloc from scattering out from under a unit. How could it scatter out from under a unit? Only if it was originally placed on said unit.

Case closed.

It coukd just as easily scatter through a unit ending up underneath it. What you have quoted is not specific enough to make a case either way.

G

No, because it specifically mentions that a pheromone trail from the Lictor would PREVENT it from scattering out from UNDER their prey's feet.

How could it prevent it from scattering out from under something when it was never under it in the first place? The Lictor is preventing it from scattering from it's original placement, which in this case would be "under their prey's feet - gulp!"

Yeah you are right. I absolutely botched that one.

G

Using WD articles as case materiel in rules disputes?

I mentioned that I am not using the often mistaken Battle Report but instead a Tactica article.

I am not even saying I agree 100% with this example of how it is ruled, jut that it is enough to concede my point on the subject and could probably put this one to rest.

So you think that your conceding the point puts this one to rest?

WD is not a reliable source.

I can point out tons of batreps that have clearly gotten it wrong. I can't say the same of the tactica articles.

And I said it is enough to concede MY point, not for everyone. However if others see this part of the article, apply it to what they thought, then they also might change their idea of the Mawloc.

If it comes out as a GW FAQ, will you be one of those that will still not play it because you will cling to the "house rules" clause?

I wish that what was written in WD tactica articles was true, then my SWs could use special CCWs with Mark of the Wulfen.

The GW tactica on tyranid psychic powers (downloadable). Gives me the tip that Aura of Despair (used at start of assault phase) should be used to buff Psychic Scream or The Horror (psychic shooting attacks). The only beneficient explanation I can find for this is that the tactica was written before a recent rules change, maybe AoD was moved from shooting to assault phase in order to give it a wider field of effect... But in all honesty, I think the true explanation is that GW needs to hire a bunch of slightly autistic game designers and put them in charge of testplaying. Or just use public beta testing like all the smart computer game companies.

Sorry about that rant. On the OP: I think the tactica is circumstantial support for the already quite reasonable assumption that the Mawlock is supposed to be aimed at units. After all, the blatant errors are indeed a minority even within GWs tacticas.

DruidODurham wrote:I wish that what was written in WD tactica articles was true, then my SWs could use special CCWs with Mark of the Wulfen.

Was that a Tactica article or was that a Battle Report?

Brother Ramses wrote:

DruidODurham wrote:I wish that what was written in WD tactica articles was true, then my SWs could use special CCWs with Mark of the Wulfen.

Was that a Tactica article or was that a Battle Report?

A battle report.

Yea, that was the point I was trying to make.

Aha. Good point then. I agree with it :-)

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that this Tactica was written by Cruddance himself, and not just some random person, like the ones that wrote the Online Psychic power tactica. So it SHOULD hold more weight on an issue such as this one since we are getting a good idea of what the writer intended (but we all know how people out in internetzland will react to it).

Yes, it definitely gives a valuable input on RAI. And it's great that Cruddace gets a chance to clarify some of his fuzzily described rules by adressing them in a tactica.

Which is the only reason why I pointed it out. The fact that they recommend using it with the Lictor pheromone rule shows an interaction of different units lends credence to deep striking on or within 1" of an enemy unit.

I mean what other instance, with a Mawloc, would you want them NOT to scatter away from underneath an enemy unit? Hence the recommended tactic is a valid tactic.

Was that a Tactica article or was that a Battle Report?

In fact it was an army list description by none other than Robin Cruddace.

I agree totally that it is able to deep strike onto enemy units.

But the fact of the matter is, unless it's in some rules resource such as the codex, the rulebook, or the FAQs, it really is meaningless to a discussion of the matter.

Just take Phil Kelly and Deffrollas, He has been quoted multiple times by reliable sources as having said that they do not function when Ramming, but here we are, with a FAQ that says they can be used in a ram.

As much as I don't like Cruddace's work, this one isn't his fault either really, as the debate revolves around the core ruleset. He simply shares the understanding of about 50% of the community, it atleast shows us RAI, and might convince people to let the Mawloc Deep Strike onto units. The problem is, because it's all really rulebook rules, not codex rules, it should be consistent across all deep striking units.

What I find amusing is the number of people who claim to play it that you can't deep strike onto enemy units, when the only things playing that way actually effects are the things with special rules for deep striking onto enemies... Seems very counterproductive when compared to the RAI.

DruidODurham wrote:

Was that a Tactica article or was that a Battle Report?

In fact it was an army list description by none other than Robin Cruddace.

For the Battle Report! Seriously man, it isn't that hard to admit it was part of a batrep which we have all scrutinized and consistently found errors.

I am talking about a Tactica article. The articles written to teach people the the armies tactics. I am sure they are going to playtest and proofread articles telling players HOW to play their armies much more then their batreps.

Even so, it isn't like the excerpt I quoted isn't some vague notion, it gets right to the point.

Brother Ramses wrote:I can point out tons of batreps that have clearly gotten it wrong. I can't say the same of the tactica articles.

Link

Games Workshop wrote:And while Fire Warriors may deplore close combat the savage Kroot have no such reservations, having a Strength of 4 and 2 Attacks if assaulting.

Kroot rifles count as two CCWs, they should have 3 attacks on the charge.

I'm almost certain that they also used to list the Pulse Rifle at the wrong Str or AP value in that Tactica, although it appears they corrected that issue. Regardless, it's still evidence that Tacticas aren't perfect.

A typo versus example of a special rule?

Not only an example of the special rule, but also how it interacts with another unit's special rule.

I can understand a typo of a 2 versus a 3, but a whole paragraph specifically pointing out a tactic as a typo?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you could not place a model on or within 1" of a model, why would the Tactica article suggest using the Lictor pheromone at all?

That would be insuring that the Mawloc would NEVER get a Terror of the Deep because with a Lictor present the Mawloc would NEVER scatter onto an enemy unit thus triggering a Terror of the Deep.

So, the Mawloc must be able to be initially be placed on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Since the Mawloc only has Deep Strike as a special rule, ergo, any unit with the Deep Strike special rule could initially be placed on or within 1" of an enemy model.

Oh god not this again. :(

Batreps != Rules.

The RULES allow it to DS onto a unit, not a Batrep.

It actually would be that hard to say it was part of a battle report, cause that would be a lie. The article I'm referring to is on pp. 24-25 in WD357 in the section labelled Design Notes. The battle report is on pp. 52-71.

Gwar! wrote:Oh god not this again. :(

Batreps != Rules.

The RULES allow it to DS onto a unit, not a Batrep.

Reread the thread Gwar. I am not quoting a batrep, I am quoting a Tyranids Tactica article.

Tactica != rules.

rules = rules.

Until a GW FAQ, then who the hell knows what is what.

No, because when a GW FAQ comes out, the "house rules" clause comes into effect.

This article is enough "intent" for me. Don't really agree with it, but can see now how was intended.

Brother Ramses wrote:Well I will now begrudgingly concede my point that a Mawloc cannot initially be placed on or within 1" of an enemy model. My disagreement is not based on being worried about the tactic but the obscure writing of Terror of the Deep and what seems to be a not very well play-tested use of the in-game scatter mechanic to be used for Terror of the Deep.

I see that you are conceding your point, however, I just want to caution you that you're doing it for the wrong reason. Nothing is obscured about the TftD writing, it is actually quite clear; 'instead' is the clear and operant word;

"Terror from the deep: If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following."

Any unit that is deep striking can be placed anywhere on the table including directly on top of another unit. The traditional 1 inch rule does not apply because the unit is not in the game until the deep strike resolves, the deep strike resolves only after the Mishap table is queried. The difference between TftD and a normal unit that with a normal unit who is deep striking, near the end of the resolution of the deep strike, you query, 'is the unit going to be coming into the game within mishap distance of another unit? If yes, roll on the Mishap table'. The Mawloc rule clearly states: "... if yes, do the TftD rules instead of the mishap table". Thus, for the case of the 1 inch rule of the mishap query, the TftD disregards the 1 inch section of the Mishap rule and instead of a Mishap does something else entirely.

Quite clear with only the RAW rule book and codex needed, no outside source is needed for this to be clear.

Brother Ramses,

Understood. I as well think we can put this one to bed for the time being. If GW ever clarifies this in an FAQ see what that says but until then between this tactica, the previous battle report , the existing text, and previous history that is enough for me to put a fork in this one.

-Hank