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.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Option A means you place the first model as an intentional mishap if there is no scatter. You can't place a model on top of other units or impassable terrain.

Yes you can, try reading the rules for Jump Infantry. There is one example of being able to put units onto Impassible Terrain.

FlingitNow wrote:

Option A means you place the first model as an intentional mishap if there is no scatter.

And what is wrong with that? Nothing in the rules to prevent it.

Sort of the main point of the argument.) Some people believe there are rules to prevent it.

The rule states you must place the model on the table. on top of Other units & impassable terrain is not placing the model on the table, thus option A is not RAW or RAI, it's HYWPI.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rule states you must place the model on the table. on top of Other units & impassable terrain is not placing the model on the table, thus option A is not RAW or RAI, it's HYWPI.

G

Ok, so since you must place it on the table,I assume you play on completely terrainless and Paintless tables, as placing it on a hill or onto paint on top of a table is not placing it on the table.

like I said other units and impassable terrain is not on the table.

G

like I said other units and impassable terrain is not on the table.

Why do you conclude this? From what rules is impassible terrrain defined as not on the table? What about other terrain? So JI that land on impassible terrain are no longer on the table? Does this mean they can not be shot at or assaulted or targeted by psychic powers or any in game effects?

Does the BRB even stipulate how models can be 'placed on the table'? I couldn't find rules to prevent me from deploying my marines on top of my rhino, just rules that prevent them from moving there after the game starts.

The rulebook provides sufficient guidelines to determine how many models can be placed on the table. You'll figure it out if you ever run out of enough space.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote: like I said other units and impassable terrain is not on the table.

G

And Likewise, on top of a hill or into a ruin is not on the table by your logic.

GBF

Is the model in play when it is "placed"? If so then all the normal movement and deployment rules would apply.

If so then you are using option C.

If not then those rules do not apply and therefore the model must simply be placed on the table. Note that you can use the wobbly model rule should that place have enemy units or other awkard terrain on it...

yakface wrote:
Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.

Well that went right out the window, as usual.

Sorry Jon! I'll behave now.

: )

G

Gorkamorka wrote:

yakface wrote:
Feel free to post how and why you voted, but please DO NOT ENGAGE OTHERS IN DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK THE RULES SAY. Please create a separate thread if you feel the urge to have this kind of discussion.

Well that went right out the window, as usual.

What did you expect? This is Dakkadakka, a not-as-wretched-as-a-more-wretched-hive-of-scum-and-villainy, in the YMDC section, a place designed so that some people can unleash their urge to argue.

Option A. The first model is meant to mark where the unit will land; it doesn't actually exist on the table, per se, until after it has scattered. That marks the location where the unit appears. As such, you can place the initial model anywhere you want, scatter it, and THEN you apply the 1" rule and all that jazz.

yakface wrote:

The Deep Strike rules says (rulebook, pg 95): "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice.

The rules for Impassable Terrain say (rulebook, pgs 13-14): "Impassable terrain includes deep water, lava flows, steep rocky cliffs and buildings that models cannot enter, as agreed with your opponent. Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain.

Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it."

I voted D, unless I read something in one of the options incorrectly.

You can not position a model/unit into impassable terrain - without a special rule or opponents consent - because models cannot enter those areas. Impassable Terrain doesn't say "unless deepstriking", and iirc this is a restrictive rule set, not permissive.

B all the way.

I think A is the clearest option by pure RAW.

I also think A is the 'as-intended' option due to the Mawloc being an absolutely stupid unit, clearly inferior to other similar options (Trygon), and relying far too much on an opportune "miss" to use the only special ability that the unit has if indeed A is not the correct interpretation.

Surely the phrase "..in the position where you would like the unit to arrive,.." after talking about placing the model down, is all the initial RAW you need to support A. I say initial because if you follow on through there are rules clearly written that apply to any situations that can be made be using A's reasoning. So there should not be a problem with the counter-reasoning of "but what happens next". Read the rules.

So, my point is its (A) because "where you would like" implies a preference rather than a choice made. The final choice/position is determined by the results of the scatter dice.

I wont even go into the arguments about what counts as the table. Its silly to assume anything other than the simplest most straight forward explanation.

This is similar to the Drop Pod question. I chose option A.

Because conceptually, option B and C don't make any sense to me. The scatter dice represent the inherent inaccuracy of deep striking, which occurs whilst the unit is en route, not when it actually hits the ground. The inaccuracy therefore effects the landing spot, not what happens when it touches down. I hope that made sense

option A

because in my opinion the initial placement is an estimated place of arrival until the player has rolled for scatter, not the physical location of the model. it would seem odd to me if the unit would drop on the battlefield and then, in 2/3 of all cases, tumbles up to double their regular movement over all kinds of terrain and/or models before coming to a halt. so to me it makes sense that they hit the ground (or mountain or stream of lava or top of a razorback) only after you rolled for scatter and they finished dropping out of the sky (or digging up from below).

I went for A as well.

If you really want to place the first model over impassable terrain/models, it's your choice as far as I see it. However, if you roll a direct hit on the Scatter, you should suffer a Deep Strike Mishap for it. Likewise, any scatter roll that would take the model into impassable terrain should be an instant mishap too.

I treat the first model as a marker though, until the final scatter position is determined. Once that is rolled/measured, the marker takes its place as the first model of the unit, and any mishap rolls are done if necessary (unless the unit has something to bypass Mishaps, like the Mawloc if it lands on enemy models).

I voted for A, IMO its the closest to RAW, and its also the most reasonable.

The Deep Strike rules says (rulebook, pg 95): "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice.

the unit does not actually arrive untill you find the final position based on scatter, at least this is my interpretation.

Scott-S6 wrote:B - no deliberately aiming for a point you can't be.

But that's not what the rule says. The rule says "anywhere on the table". Then it follows it with, "if that happens to be impassable terrain" then. . .

So you can deliberately aim for somewhere you can't go. But, once you arrive there, you mishap.

A.

I voted A; that's just my interpretation of both RAW and RAI. Most if not all of the arguments for my opinion have already been presented in the thread.

I can totally understand people playing it the other way, but I don't.

As an aside, I really didn't see any discussion/contention on this topic at all before the Lictor/Spod box + Mawloc Instagib became part of the 40k Net Deck.

I have no doubt that many people do sincerely feel the more correct interpretation is something other than A, but I get the impression that much of the discontent is more related to vitriol surrounding the 'new gimmick' than actual interpretation of the rules.

Redbeard-
But you can place a model within 1 inch of your models and touching the table usually. Unless of course you keep your units within 1" coherency and not 2".

So would this be allowed? The model is on the table, and it's inside your unit.

I voted option B, but I now realize I should have voted option D.

The way I interpret this is that the only place on the table you can't place the initial model is on top of impassible terrain. This is because the two rules use the word "place", as in Deepstrike says to "place" anywhere on the table, and impassible terrain says models can't be "placed" on impassible terrain.

You can, however, place the initial model within 1" of opposing models as I do not consider the initial placement to be movement. If it scatters, it may scatter in any direction and into impassible terrain or other models - suffering mishaps as normal.

sourclams wrote:As an aside, I really didn't see any discussion/contention on this topic at all before the Lictor/Spod box + Mawloc Instagib became part of the 40k Net Deck.

I have no doubt that many people do sincerely feel the more correct interpretation is something other than A, but I get the impression that much of the discontent is more related to vitriol surrounding the 'new gimmick' than actual interpretation of the rules.

Pretty much. Models have been able to deep strike directly on top of one another since the Necrons, and No-one has cared.

On a tactical note, all this crying about Mawlocs and Doom is pointless, because both actually suck, a lot.

Due to the destructive nature of this for deepstrikers in the past it's never been an issue. I've voted A because the choice to deepstrike your unit to it's potential destruction is viable according to the rules.

The issue here with the Mawloc and TftD revolves around a question of whether TftD was intended as a byproduct attack caused by scattering or as an intentional and directed attack that a tyranid player can use like artillery. In this case, not only are the rules clear, the fluff supports it on the mawloc description. TftD is intended to be it's 'one trick pony' weapon IMO. I think this is even supported by the re-burrowing to use this weapon again in the game. It is intentional and it is directed.

So, the rest of the deep striking world can aim to land somewhere that would lead to a mishap.

MikeV37 wrote:Redbeard-
But you can place a model within 1 inch of your models and touching the table usually. Unless of course you keep your units within 1" coherency and not 2".

By RAW, yes. I don't see a problem with that.

Dracos wrote:I voted option B, but I now realize I should have voted option D.

Yeah, technically by the above, I'd be 'D' as well, but that seems like voting for Perot. You're just throwing your vote away if you vote C or D.

Gwar! wrote:
Pretty much. Models have been able to deep strike directly on top of one another since the Necrons...

I see nothing in the Necron rules, the Deep Strike rules, the Necron FAQ or the overall FAQ that allows any Necron unit (even the monolith) to ignore being placed on the table. Really Gwar, for such a RAW advocate, I don't know how you keep missing this.