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.

The poll option A is only ahead by 20 percent. It's just these people are very vocal. The rules regarding deep strike are simple and very easy to understand. Option A is RAIWITB.

G

Hmm, Considering we have not one, but TWO current threads whining about this, with both OP's not agreeing to the RaW answer as given by the INAT...

yeah, we are sooooo very vocal...

Green Blow Fly wrote:The poll option A is only ahead by 20 percent. It's just these people are very vocal. The rules regarding deep strike are simple and very easy to understand. Option A is RAIWITB.

G

But you have no argument that has not been invalidated. Also, no other argument other people have posted you have responded to.

The Poll Option A has the advantage of an absolute majority of player supporting it.

Steve, I really think GW thought it was obvious. This is what the Mawloc is meant to do. And they thought the precedent of the Spore Mine would mean everyone would know right way that this is the idea.

It could be clearer, and I know it discomfits a lot of people as it's not the way previous DSing stuff (with the notable exceptions of Spore Mines and the Monolith) tended to work, but it really looks like this is how it works.

Green Blow Fly wrote: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.

No, you are doing the figuring incorrectly to bias the conclusion to support your conclusion. In deep striking, the other models can be positioned to minimize the necessary distance, and it's equally plausible that a player would not choose the point inside the enemy unit which would minimize the odds of avoiding a mishap.

More importantly, a 40mm base doesn't need to move 40mm to clear a 25mm base, but rather only 32.5mm because the initial model only has to move across half the foot print in order to clear the obstacle. More importantly, the other models in the unit are placed as desired, so the other two models in a three model terminator squad can be ignored for purposes of the foot print in almost every case.

So according to the odds, a terminator model will in fact scatter out of mishap range more often than not if placed on top of a single enemy model, and only have an approximately 1 in 9 (or 1 in 8 to be generous) chance of destruction by mishap.

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, Considering we have not one, but TWO current threads whining about this, with both OP's not agreeing to the RaW answer as given by the INAT...

yeah, we are sooooo very vocal...

RAW answer? What answer and how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was RAW? If you have decisive evidence, please explain and end these three threads of bickering.

Pika_power wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Hmm, Considering we have not one, but TWO current threads whining about this, with both OP's not agreeing to the RaW answer as given by the INAT...

yeah, we are sooooo very vocal...

RAW answer? What answer and how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was RAW? If you have decisive evidence, please explain and end these three threads of bickering.

Read anywhere on any of the first pages of the three threads for a RaW answer.


See what I did there?

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

G

So this ruling is RAW, or are you implying in a roundabout way that there is no RAW here?

Pika_power wrote:

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

G

So this ruling is RAW, or are you implying in a roundabout way that there is no RAW here?

. . . guys, he didn't see what I did there.

No, I missed it.

Do it again?

Pika_power wrote:No, I missed it.

Do it again?

Just look ANYWHERE in the other threads on the subject, and you will find the RaW answer. Remember, look ANYWHERE

Pika_power wrote:

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

G

So this ruling is RAW, or are you implying in a roundabout way that there is no RAW here?

Look ANYWHERE else.

Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

muwhe wrote:Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

It's pretty cut and dry for those of us who don't face a tyranid meta game . It's weird, but it seems like people who face tyranids ignore raw to avoid facing the mawloc

White Dwarf is notorious for playing games wrongly and against RAW and FAQs.

muwhe wrote:Greenie,
Go Pick up WD360, and read the battle report for the Tyranids vs Salamanders. Written by Robin author of the codex.

"Two Terminators were instantly killed as the Mawloc surfaced directly beneath them.”

That is only one reference to it. There are at least 3 others scattered in the narrative of this report. The RAW might be unclear but the RAI evidence continues to pile up.

Read the battle report for Space Wolves and see if you want to let my Mark of the Wulfen character have extra rending thunderhammer attacks.

Pika_power wrote:White Dwarf is notorious for playing games wrongly and against RAW and FAQs.

But it was written by Cruddence. Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it.

Who it was written by means nothing. The author of the Chaos codex said Lash meant max distance/no put into a group when at a convention. We all know how that turned out.

Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

I feel special!

I'm just waiting for the first titan killed by a mawloc.... yes that ant, can't, move a rubber tree plant....

agnosto wrote:I'm just waiting for the first titan killed by a mawloc.... yes that ant, can't, move a rubber tree plant....

Holy crap, yes, Mawloc has apple pie in the sky hopes!

PS, ty for the pickmeup, because I just horrifically bombed a job interview. They asked me what I did in my spare time to unwind, and I mentioned this hobby. Ugh. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a side note i still don't know how to answer that in a relevant and meaningful way.

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

So by that logic, I have proof that my SW character can indeed use his Mark of the Wulfen to increase his Thunderhammer attacks and make then rending as well?

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

So by that logic, I have proof that my SW character can indeed use his Mark of the Wulfen to increase his Thunderhammer attacks and make then rending as well?

No, bro ram, the proof isn't the example. I just said the proof was provided previously (ooo) and these examples just back it up. The wulfen thing backs up nothing, because the RAW breaks down in the first place. Just because WD gets it wrong SOMETIMES, doesn't mean they get it wrong EVERY time.

apwill4765 wrote:

agnosto wrote:I'm just waiting for the first titan killed by a mawloc.... yes that ant, can't, move a rubber tree plant....

Holy crap, yes, Mawloc has apple pie in the sky hopes!

PS, ty for the pickmeup, because I just horrifically bombed a job interview. They asked me what I did in my spare time to unwind, and I mentioned this hobby. Ugh. WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a side note i still don't know how to answer that in a relevant and meaningful way.

You interviewed at GW? J/K. Good luck in the future, the job market the way it is, we all need some luck.

I'm thinking of playing tyranids just so I can ruin some player's day when my 200point model offs his titan.... you gotta admit it'd be funny.

Pika_power wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

What is this proof you speak of? Because I'm not smart enough to understand, I'm afraid 'anywhere on the first page' doesn't cut the mustard.

C'mon man, anywhere, as in, during deepstrike the model may be placed anywhere on the table.

It was a subtle and humorous reference to the only sentence that has ever really mattered in this whole darn mess of a RAW argument.

apwill4765 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

apwill4765 wrote:Well, since you just ignored it I will reiterate:

"Also, the A camp is just throwing this at you to help you understand. We have proof, and we have presented it."

We've presented proof, here are examples to further reinforce the argument. You don't have to like the examples, and it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

So by that logic, I have proof that my SW character can indeed use his Mark of the Wulfen to increase his Thunderhammer attacks and make then rending as well?

No, bro ram, the proof isn't the example. I just said the proof was provided previously (ooo) and these examples just back it up. The wulfen thing backs up nothing, because the RAW breaks down in the first place. Just because WD gets it wrong SOMETIMES, doesn't mean they get it wrong EVERY time.

But your using it as an example of your proof. I mean I can yank some of my HAIR out and present it as an example as proof of Bigfoot, but that doesn't make it so.

Edit: Family friendly, folks.

Ah. Is it too late for me to feel intelligent for getting the joke?

Anyway, my models' heads=//=the table.