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.

visavismeyou wrote:

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.

I won't point out the multiple, multiple page threads that prove that it wasn't as clear as you want to think.

Brother Ramses wrote:

I won't point out the multiple, multiple page threads that prove that it wasn't as clear as you want to think.

No need, it is completely clear irrespective of anyone's opinion of it. Just because there have been many pages of discussion and misunderstanding of the word "instead" does not provide any proof that it is anything other than crystal clear from the RAW.

Now you're just running around the room with your hands over your ears shouting, "CLEARCLEARCLEARCLEAR!!!"

The proof is in the disagreements and various arguments presented on BOTH side.

I personally have NEVER had a problem with any of the rules interpretations at both of the hobby stores I play at. I think most if not all the arguments come from people who don't play Tyranids at all and they feel the unit is 'overpowered'. And also they don't have as kick ass a model like the Mawloc

visavismeyou wrote:

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.

You're skills are wasted here. You are desperately needed in other parts of the world where people are fighting bitterly over things. Your skill at just waving your hands and saying "It works this way and is quite clear!" are all that's needed.

D'oh. It never even occurred to me to just ignore everything anyone else said and look in the rulebook for where it was crystal clear!

/sarcasm button off.

No, it's not clear, and not clear by RAW. That's whay so many people are arguing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I personally have NEVER had a problem with any of the rules interpretations at both of the hobby stores I play at. I think most if not all the arguments come from people who don't play Tyranids at all and they feel the unit is 'overpowered'. And also they don't have as kick ass a model like the Mawloc

This one fails as well. Too easy to turn it around to say "it's only people who play nids and want the overpowered rules" feel this way. An equally stupid arguement, but also equally valid.

And while I will admit I love the new Trygon model, (Liked selling huge stacks of them too!), it pales in the shadow of the delicate grace and complexity of the new Ork Deff Dredd.

My next project is building and painting 18 killer kans, 6 deffdreads, and 3 Megadredds for part of our games day table.

I think it's clear, I don't see any part of it that causes any problems. People have arguments like this fueled by anger and confusion all the time. People need to stop arguing just so that they can have their 'Nid opponent at a disadvantage.

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:I think it's clear, I don't see any part of it that causes any problems. People have arguments like this fueled by anger and confusion all the time. People need to stop arguing just so that they can have their 'Nid opponent at a disadvantage.

Fail. Accusing people who disagree with you of anger and confusion doesn't really do much to get your point across.

Let's counter with: All Nid players are just angry and confused, and just want over powered units.

Neither you're statement or mine have any content. Taunt, I'm right!, accusation.

You can't make arguements go away just by telling the other person they are wrong, because you are obviously right. Enough people have veiws on opposite sides of the fence that gamers are going to have to work this out between themselves, at clubs, at tournaments, or by deciding to use INAT or some other guidelines, and wait it out until GW decides to do an FAQ. Might be a week, might be 3 years. The deffrolla ruling makes me hopeful, but hope is often crushed.

Brother Ramses wrote:Now you're just running around the room with your hands over your ears shouting, "CLEARCLEARCLEARCLEAR!!!"

The proof is in the disagreements and various arguments presented on BOTH side.

Wrong, I'm attempting to explain to you that the word "proof" is a technical word and you are misusing it.

In order for fact 'A' to be proof to assert the truth value 'T' of the conclusion 'φ', 'A' must be sufficient to establish 'φ' as true. To be sufficient, it must be relevant and must tie a connection between the two.

Just because some people still debate whether Obama is an American citizen does not call into doubt the certitude of Obama's status as a Natural Born Citizen.

Similarly, just because there has been disagreement and various arguments does not mean the RAW is not clear for the TftD. Your perception does not affect reality; nor does anyone else's.

The word "instead" is an operator that has a very clear effect on the normal rules for deep strike as it pertains to a particular instance of the Mawloc deep striking, this is clear, no amount of argument or disagreement can change that reality; just because people argue does not mean that the basic syntax of the English language are difficult to understand or unclear.

Finally, the majority of the debate about the Mawloc was not even about the Mawloc's ability of TftD... The majority of the debate was about whether or not you can place a deep striking model in the first step of deep striking within 1 inch of an enemy model... That is your "proof" that the TftD rule was unclear... Are you beginning to see that it is indeed not proof? You cant talk about DS rules and then magically transfer to the TftD and say its unclear...

In order for you to understand this more fully, if the Mawloc's ability never existed, your entire 'proof' that the Mawloc's ability was unclear would still exist because even if the Mawloc's ability never existed people would still misunderstand deep striking. A simple reading of the DS rules clears up the entire debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:

/sarcasm button off.

No, it's not clear, and not clear by RAW. That's whay so many people are arguing.

Again, it is clear by RAW, please read my last reply to Brother Ramses


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:You can't make arguements go away just by telling the other person they are wrong, because you are obviously right. Enough people have veiws on opposite sides of the fence that gamers are going to have to work this out between themselves, at clubs, at tournaments, or by deciding to use INAT or some other guidelines, and wait it out until GW decides to do an FAQ. Might be a week, might be 3 years. The deffrolla ruling makes me hopeful, but hope is often crushed.

Correct, you cant just say they're wrong, you have to demonstrate how, as I did.

Each person who thinks the Mawloc operates in anyway other than the rules dictate universally misunderstand how deep striking works. As soon as you understand how deep striking works, the Mawloc's TftD rules make sense.

By saying "I think its clear" I was agreeing with visavismeyou.

And by stating my bias about people who argue about these things I was looking at what actually CAUSES these arguments in the first place. ONE of the ways I can see how this could happen is if a 'Nid player was facing some other army and that other person refused to believe that it worked that way because he thought it was unfair somehow and went online to start an argument that is now being fueled by other players who believe the same. The fact is that IS how it works and theres no disputing it except for the sake of arguing.

Mikhaila, what did you think about Yakface's poll, or more specifically, that if the initial model used to determine position actually and 100% counts as being on the table, then when moving via the scatter dice will stop at impassable terrain/models, thus illustrating that the initial model, if played the way suggested to stop the mawloc, means that everyone has been playing deepstrike wrong since the game started.

I mean, doesnt the deepstrike mishap table even go and say if you would end up on top of a model, then the model does not get placed, and roll a mishap? Thus, via the deepstrike section, you do not place the model until determining if it would end up on a model/within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

All in all, I always conisdered the arguments with the Mawloc TFtD not working an easter egg hunt, trying to use the initial model language in a way that the rest of the rules does not support. But my opinion on the matter is also that the Mawloc is a very poor unit in either case, and the nid codex overall is not a competitive codex at all.

EDIT: Also, has anyone addressed that TftD doesnt work anyway?

What I mean is, forget the ENTIRE placement issue, and just look at what happens if you do hurt but fail to kill a model with the s6 ap2 attack. Anything not killed is moved the shortest distance to touch the edge of the 5 inch diameter. That is 127 mm wide. Then you place the Mawloc centered over the large blast. The Mawloc supplied base, at its SHORTEST width, is 100mm, leaving 13.5 mm from the outside of the Mawloc's base to the outside of the large blast on either side. THUS, an enemy legally moved will ALWAYS be within 1 inch (25.4 mm) of the Mawloc when moved. And because you cant mishap with a mawloc since you already bypassed the mishap step, you are stuck within 1 inch of the enem, intended or not.

Thus, no matter how you play, TftD gets around placement issues.

DevianID wrote:Mikhaila, what did you think about Yakface's poll, or more specifically, that if the initial model used to determine position actually and 100% counts as being on the table, then when moving via the scatter dice will stop at impassable terrain/models, thus illustrating that the initial model, if played the way suggested to stop the mawloc, means that everyone has been playing deepstrike wrong since the game started.

I mean, doesnt the deepstrike mishap table even go and say if you would end up on top of a model, then the model does not get placed, and roll a mishap? Thus, via the deepstrike section, you do not place the model until determining if it would end up on a model/within 1 inch of an enemy unit.

All in all, I always conisdered the arguments with the Mawloc TFtD not working an easter egg hunt, trying to use the initial model language in a way that the rest of the rules does not support. But my opinion on the matter is also that the Mawloc is a very poor unit in either case, and the nid codex overall is not a competitive codex at all.

EDIT: Also, has anyone addressed that TftD doesnt work anyway?

What I mean is, forget the ENTIRE placement issue, and just look at what happens if you do hurt but fail to kill a model with the s6 ap2 attack. Anything not killed is moved the shortest distance to touch the edge of the 5 inch diameter. That is 127 mm wide. Then you place the Mawloc centered over the large blast. The Mawloc supplied base, at its SHORTEST width, is 100mm, leaving 13.5 mm from the outside of the Mawloc's base to the outside of the large blast on either side. THUS, an enemy legally moved will ALWAYS be within 1 inch (25.4 mm) of the Mawloc when moved. And because you cant mishap with a mawloc since you already bypassed the mishap step, you are stuck within 1 inch of the enem, intended or not.

Thus, no matter how you play, TftD gets around placement issues.

I'm sorry, I'm failing to see your point, everything you stated works just fine... No rules are violated...

I think you've just completely made my earlier point for me, you appear to be confused, and you seem to think something about the Mawloc's TFTD violates some rule, but there are no rules being violated.

"that if the initial model used to determine position actually and 100% counts as being on the table,"

This is a complete misunderstanding of the DS Rules by whoever made that poll.