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'll come around in a month or so..

What when the FAQ comes out

Oh they haven't released it yet? Strange...

Fling, FC gives +1 strt and +1 initiative. So your tactical mishap model is actually Str7 and initiative 5 on the charge with 4 attacks.

Also, poisoned attacks wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness. In addition since the Mawloc is str6/7 he also gets to reroll wounds on models with toughness 6 or less.

Please know the rules when trying to debate that the Mawloc is nothing more then the tactical mishap model you want to describe.

And my Blood Claws are WS3, which has not stopped them from roflstomping units at str 4.

Fling, FC gives +1 strt and +1 initiative. So your tactical mishap model is actually Str7 and initiative 5 on the charge with 4 attacks.

Also, poisoned attacks wound on a 4+ regardless of toughness. In addition since the Mawloc is str6/7 he also gets to reroll wounds on models with toughness 6 or less.

Please know the rules when trying to debate that the Mawloc is nothing more then the tactical mishap model you want to describe.

Well that was a lot of shouting about nothing. a S6-7 model doesn't really need to wound on 4+ does it? it wounds mostly on a 2+ already... those 4 attacks equate to 2 hits and yeah most times 2 dead enemy (well less than 1 dead enemy against assault terminators) models woo hoo I just smashed 12 points worth of orks, then they strike back and I'm very dead... What a great way to spend 170 points.

I know the rules the only benefit of this model is the DS attack. It is little to no threat otherwise. I'd ask you to actually look at the rules for the model in question before describing it as anything other than a 1 trick pony. Yes it has a high strength but with so few attacks and a poor WS and no scything talons that high str is pretty useless.

Compare with a Trygon on the charge with 7 attacks hitting on 3s with re-roll (so will hit 8 out of 9 times) on average over 3 times as many hits as the Mawloc...

Your own limitations make the Mawloc a one trick pony.

Beyond what I have already pointed out, 6 wounds and a 3+ save. And assaulting assault terminators? Are you just picking a hard unit to make your point? Why not just pick a C'Tan?

Also, unless faced with a force weapon or equivalent, he is not dying to insta-kill.

Brother Ramses wrote:FAQ counsel aside, the problem IMHO arises from the player base.

You don't say.

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 see it as a new unit with a new set of rules that forces players to re-examine their old assumptions. Everyone just assumed you can't aim a deep striking unit at an enemy because it you did that and got the hit, you were screwed. Now we have a unit whose sole function is to deep strike onto enemy units and has rules that tell you what happens when it does arrive on an enemy unit instead of the normal mishap. Just because no one ever wanted to do it before doesn't mean it was never possible before.

It's not all that different from deep striking drop pods before there were inertial guidance systems to control scatter. Now, aiming a drop pod into a gap between enemy units practically guarantees you'll land where you want. It used to be very risky. Similarly drop pods used to be able to fire when they landed because their entry stated that they could. Now they can't but we didn't get a rule explicitly telling us that the old rule had changed. We figured out using the vehicle movement and firing rules combined with the deep strike rules. This situation is similar.

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.

I think it's far more likely that the it will be those who think the mawloc only works by accident who will have a problem with the FAQ whenever it comes.

Brother Ramses wrote:Your own limitations make the Mawloc a one trick pony.

Beyond what I have already pointed out, 6 wounds and a 3+ save. And assaulting assault terminators? Are you just picking a hard unit to make your point? Why not just pick a C'Tan?

Also, unless faced with a force weapon or equivalent, he is not dying to insta-kill.

What you're refusing to acknowledge is that for 30 points more you get a model that is more than twice as good in CC as a Mawloc, just as survivable, leaves a tunnel other 'nids can deepstrike through, is incapable of mishap (works like a drop pod), and has 6 Str 5 AP 5 shots.

And seriously? Gee, lets see. Your blood claws put out what, 40 attacks on the charge? Yeah, that'll be effective. 4 attacks? Not so much.

Arschbombe wrote: Just because no one ever wanted to do it before doesn't mean it was never possible before.

Spore mines have been doing it for years.

Kroot Loops wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Your own limitations make the Mawloc a one trick pony.

Beyond what I have already pointed out, 6 wounds and a 3+ save. And assaulting assault terminators? Are you just picking a hard unit to make your point? Why not just pick a C'Tan?

Also, unless faced with a force weapon or equivalent, he is not dying to insta-kill.

What you're refusing to acknowledge is that for 30 points more you get a model that is more than twice as good in CC as a Mawloc, just as survivable, leaves a tunnel other 'nids can deepstrike through, is incapable of mishap (works like a drop pod), and has 6 Str 5 AP 5 shots.

And seriously? Gee, lets see. Your blood claws put out what, 40 attacks on the charge? Yeah, that'll be effective. 4 attacks? Not so much.

QFT

If the mawloc can't intentionally deep strike on models, there is no fething point to use him. He would be a complete waste of points all together and would be better spent on a trygon. I think a lot of the people who are commenting on this thread need to ACTUALLY read the entry and see all the options.

Sneezypanda wrote:

If the mawloc can't intentionally deep strike on models, there is no fething point to use him. He would be a complete waste of points all together and would be better spent on a trygon. I think a lot of the people who are commenting on this thread need to ACTUALLY read the entry and see all the options.

An we all know that GW would NEVER make a model and rules that wasn't 100% fantastic in an army....*cough* space pope *cough*...... *cough* vespid *cough*

They also never write rules very clearly ** cough*** mawloc **cough*** (See, I can do that too)


The point of the model is to EAT the guys, and the fluff supports that the sole purpose is eat and go back down and come back up.

My wolf lord is only 30pts more then my wolf guard battle leader so therefore my wolf guard battle leader should be able to consume the Tyranids with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!

What you think he should be and what he does based on your opinion of his points cost or model cost is stupid as hell.

Mishap is a chance occurrence from deep striking, all you want to do is increase those chances to trigger Terror from the Deep.

This is akin to rapid firing old Blood Claws so they did not have to assault with them when within 6". You were not allowed to use a game mechanic to break another. Exactly what you are trying to do by placing your Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy mode to increase your chance of a mishap to trigger Terror from the Deep.

No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

Brother Ramses wrote:My wolf lord is only 30pts more then my wolf guard battle leader so therefore my wolf guard battle leader should be able to consume the Tyranids with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse!

What you think he should be and what he does based on your opinion of his points cost or model cost is stupid as hell.

Mishap is a chance occurrence from deep striking, all you want to do is increase those chances to trigger Terror from the Deep.

This is akin to rapid firing old Blood Claws so they did not have to assault with them when within 6". You were not allowed to use a game mechanic to break another. Exactly what you are trying to do by placing your Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy mode to increase your chance of a mishap to trigger Terror from the Deep.

Well this about shuts down any doubts as to the logic behind your reasoning. Please have your blood pressure medication on hand when the FAQ comes out.

One thing to consider is that GW is finally expanding their army and unit specific rules that encompass the entire game and range of abilities. They are starting to use all of the stat lines and vary when certain abilities work/how they work. We saw some of this with the chaos and eldar books initially, but now we see a lot with the marines, IG, SW and nids. There are tons of units that break what would be considered to be "normal" mechanics of the game. The Mawloc is just one of many recent examples.

why don't you guys just make a house rule where you play..... it's a lot easier.

FlingitNow wrote:Tactica I have a question for you... <snio>... 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? <snip>... what use is the Mawlocs attack if it can not be aimed at the enemy?

Fling,

I was just going to read the comments. I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore. However, since you asked a fair question in a genuine tone, I'm happy to respond.

First, I do not assume to know what the designers had in mind. I also do not assume that all models GW creates rules for are optimized to be cost effective. I think there are plenty of examples in plenty of books where someone can argue that a model is not fairly pointed or whether or not a unit is even worth taking considering their other choices for the same FOC slot in their codex... but that caveat aside, I will entertain your questions as I think it's a good excersize in seeing all points.

Second, when I was growing up, my father used to say, if you are a Hammer, you will see everything as a Nail. I think this can happen to all of us from time to time... IG are supposed to shoot, bugs are supposed to get to combat, etc... However, there is more to any army and this game than a single threaded function. Who says bugs cannot be tactical? I think the new bug codex has afforded the player many more choices, combos, and 'tricks' than we've had before. I see the Mawloc not as a the end all comparison to a Trygon Prime, but as another trick in the tool belt that is 'nids. I would dare say that a Trygon Prime would be taken over a Trygon any day of the week, but a Trygon and a Mawloc both have a place in a list when played to their strengths.

Ok, on to your question... Let's look at the Mawloc from another perspective. How many monstrous creatures does the Nid codex have that can get across the table into the enemy lines guaranteed on turn 2? Sure, there are hive commander upgrades to increase odds, but what monstrous creatures are guaranteed to get there on turn two? The Mawloc has a special burrowing rule that allows it to deploy turn 1, and have it guaranteed to come up on turn 2 in the enemy lines. If the tyranid player goes first, burrows it immediately, he doesn't even have to risk it being shot at.

I'm sure more than one player knows the value of presenting multiple threats to the enemy all at once. It's a viable tactic for the bugs, I don't care what you kill, just as long as plenty makes it to your lines. If I present you with enough threats, you won't be able to deal with them all. the Mawloc now offers the Tyranid player just that threat very early in the game. Should the Tyranid player be 'lucky' enough to also roll a 4+ or a 3+ in many cases with list builds, it's going to have even more threats.

Consider opponents, how many Tau, IG, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Sisters of Battle... (all of which it can insti-kill) players are going to be happy to have a monstrous creature in their lines on turn 2?

Now consider how much enemy positioning disruption and draw of fire this bug will take to bring down. That's all the more time for the poisoned hormagaunts or the genestealers to make it across. Should you get other reserves and the enemy be forced to pick between threats, all the better. Tactically, this piece gives you several options... tricks to consider in bringing the full force of your army to bare.

Consider a force multiplier increasing odds... if I was to take two or even three mawlocs... deploy them all turn 1 and then dump them into the enemies lines... now I have multiple guaranteed threats that they have to deal with.

Sure it only has WS 3 and 3 attacks (4 on charge), S, T, W = 6 and 3+ armor... that you can upgrade... maybe that's not as good as other h=t=h beasts in the bug list, but tell a Tau player those stats suck. Not to mention, just because it can't single handedly kill Abaddon, doesn't mean that it won't just wreck enemy armor, or tarpit a unit, or draw fire from the main force, or cause the enemy to move their lines and react to the new threat, or the idea of th thing along just POSSIBLY errupting into the enemy lines can cause your opponent to deploy differently and cautiously to minimize the possibility of a mishap. The possibility that it can do it over and over again... well, to the enemy, it just has to be dealt with! This is an attention getter. It's a piece that must be addressed. Since 5th Edition is a troops game, this means that while your enemy is dealing with your non-troop threats, you are giving your real plan more time to unfold.

Now there is the off chance that you scatter 1/3 of the time. Take three of them and improve your odds. Should it scatter, it doesn't immediately roll on the Mishap table, no it gets to stay on the field no matter what. That allows the tyranid player to be very aggressive with the threat, and should it happen to scatter ontop of the enemy, all the better. Should it scatter into a less than optimal position, you get to burrow again and do it all over again.

A turn 2, deep striking monster with good save, upgrades, ability to disappear and reappear (unless delt with), guaranteed rule not to mishap should something go wrong and if it happens to "mishap" it gets to do damage to the enemy - AND something that may effect your opponent's deployment and positioning both when the thing is on the field and when its not... well, I'm not sure if it's pointed right or not, but I can think of more than one army that would like to have the model to use in their list for 170 points!

If the bugs have better options, so be it. That happens from time to time. Mawlocs can hang out with my Vespids, my ork Tank Bustas, my IG Ogryn and my Chaos possessed. They can always use the company. However, I don't see it that way. I see the Mawloc as having plenty of tactical potential - even when it can't intentionally Deep Strike on top of the enemy.

Fling, thanks for the question. I hope that's what you were looking for.

Cheers,

Tac

Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?

ChrisCP wrote:

Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?

Does his phrasing matter? He meant that, when you roll the 2D6+scatter, that doesn't make you mishap. It's only when you hit an enemy model/impassable terrain do you mishap.

Tactica wrote: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

OK, here you go:'

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Tac

Natfka wrote:
The rules dont say this anywhere under deepstriking. You are allowed to place your marker model anywhere on the battlefield. However you are stupid if you have normal deep striking units and place them on top of something. Actual rule wording for deep striking is "place units ANYWHERE on the table"

The disagreement is what the table is actually defined as. Many people argue that the table includes anything that is also in contact with the physical table (e.g., terrain and other models). Some of us contend that opponents' models are not a part of the table as they shift and move whereas everything else is static. A model may be removed from the table; however a piece of terrain or the table leg is an immovable and permanent fixture. To me, "the table" means just that. If it moves or is able to move, it's not a part of the table and therefor can not be defined as "the table".

So yes, you may place your model anywhere on the table but the point of contention remains in what exactly "the table" is.

Natfka wrote:Tac

- 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...
Tac

*Prays GW does a clear concise FAQ.... like tomorrow*

Brother Ramses wrote:

Natfka wrote:Tac

- 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...
Tac

Where does it say this about deep striking? "not on top of any model that's on the field...." I dont know. Without this its an emotional arguement, not a rules arguement.
The rules dont say this anywhere under deepstriking. You are allowed to place your marker model anywhere on the battlefield. However you are stupid if you have normal deep striking units and place them on top of something. Actual rule wording for deep striking is "place units ANYWHERE on the table"

Actual wording for the Movement Phase (in which Deep Strike takes place) is not on a model or within 1" unless assaulting or in the Assault Phase. Of course that just opens up the argument that Deep Strike is part of the Deployment Phase (of which I still can't find in the BrB).

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

You're welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Natfka wrote:
The rules dont say this anywhere under deepstriking. You are allowed to place your marker model anywhere on the battlefield. However you are stupid if you have normal deep striking units and place them on top of something. Actual rule wording for deep striking is "place units ANYWHERE on the table"

The disagreement is what the table is actually defined as. Many people argue that the table includes anything that is also in contact with the physical table (e.g., terrain and other models). Some of us contend that opponents' models are not a part of the table as they shift and move whereas everything else is static. A model may be removed from the table; however a piece of terrain or the table leg is an immovable and permanent fixture. To me, "the table" means just that. If it moves or is able to move, it's not a part of the table and therefor can not be defined as "the table".

So yes, you may place your model anywhere on the table but the point of contention remains in what exactly "the table" is.

My table is composed of 12 movable terrain squares. I guess no deepstriking on my table because the terrain features move.

God these arguments are so asinine.

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Yea well that is Apwill's m.o. He throws out the TFG tag on anyone that disagrees with him like Gwar throws out the "you're cheating" to anyone that doesn't agree with his RAW opinion.

Brother Ramses wrote:

agnosto wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Yea well that is Apwill's m.o. He throws out the TFG tag on anyone that disagrees with him like Gwar throws out the "you're cheating" to anyone that doesn't agree with his RAW opinion.

I call's 'em as I see's 'em

Meh - Brother Ramses earned my first ignore.

Tactica - while I appreciate that you have conveyed your opinion in a reasonable manner, I do believe that you are deliberately trying to use the rules to corrupt the intention behind the model. If you have doubts as to what the designers intention was with the Mawloc, re-read the entire entry (including the 'fluff'), and the RAI becomes evident. That doesn't change the RAW aspect of the rules, but to say that it wasn't what was intended is being very obstinent.