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.

Soup and a roll wrote:

striogi wrote:Please provide an example where you can be in btb with an opponent model and not be in assault: As stated before you cannot use vehicles without Weapon skills as they cannot be locked in assault at all.
I can't think of any - but that isn't to say there isn't.

You want a ridiculous example?

No, I want a reasonable example...

Single model shoots a unit and wants to assault but the only way it can get into base to base via the shortest route takes it into btb with a second unit at the same time (imagine a series of alleyways surrounded by impassible terrain). The original model cannot multi-assault so will end up in combat with the unit he shot and in btb but not in combat with the second unit.

Assaulting an unengaged enemy requires base to base contact, but being in base to base contact doesn't automatically result in an assault.

I would count that as a multiple assault. he made a legal assault move and happened to contact two different units.
If he's not allowed to come into contact with another unit like that, then it's an illegal move and the assault move cannot be completed.


Please provide a valid example.

No. I think there's ample evidence in this thread and you are now seeing who will take the bait.

No, this isn't about baiting or trolling.

I want to know if a mawloc can attack the models it pops up amongst when it arrives.

I've learned with a reasonable example that simply being within 1" is not enough to be in assault - ok, cool.

I've learned that a tyranid player can place the mawloc in btb contact with an opponent. - neat.

I would assume this means they're in assault... I'd like to know if there is a situation where opposing models can be in btb and not be in assault.

The 1" rule only apples to the movement phase AFAIK. You need it to tell you you're locked into combat to be locked into combat. There's some debate as to whether an exploded vehicle let's you place models in b2b directly (it says place the models where the vehicle was). This usually isn't happening in the movement phase so a significant group of people believe models can be placed in b2b but wouldn't be locked in assault.

P.S. I hate using theoretical, crappily-written rules to argue Please play Magic or something with actual rules support if you intend to analyze this closely.

Gah, Striogi - have you read the rulebook section like I suggested?

MAKING AN ASSAULT MOVE = you are now in assault (assuyming you have range,e tc)

Has the Mawloc made an asault move? No? Then it is NOT in assault.

That's it. End. Finito. Stop, read the BRB section on assault, then comment further.

I am unsure what you are looking for in terms of an explanation. I gave you the exact reason why being in base to base does not mean you are in assault, the same reason Nos provided about assault moves.

If you want to 'reject my explanation' you are free to do so, but be mindful of the fact that your rejection has no basis in the BRB, common sense or formal logic.

Here is a specific example of why your argument is flawed. My plasma weapon overheated, so I took a wound. If I took a wound it does not necessarily mean my plasma weapon overheated.

You are trying to monotonically map being in base to base to being in assault, and that simply is not a valid argument because there are other exotic scenarios which may put you in b2b without being in assault. An example was given of an exploded transport and the unit being placed in the crater, but <1" from an enemy and possibly in B2B with them.

I am sure Nos had his own idea of why you may not be able to move, I was simply providing a scenario where that maybe the case. I am sure if you asked him he would be glad to elaborate as to why the unit may not be able to move (other than it has gone to ground).

The enemy unit in btb cannot move without "moving within 1" of an enemy model", and is not assaulting - therefore cannot move / run.

However, as they are NOT locked in combat then they can a) shoot and b) assault, as you expliciutly ARE allowed to move within 1" when making an assault move.

calypso2ts wrote:other exotic scenarios which may put you in b2b without being in assault. An example was given of an exploded transport and the unit being placed in the crater, but <1" from an enemy and possibly in B2B with them.

I must have missed that bit - sorry - That's not a bad example, I think. However that would be accidental at best, while the Mawloc placement would be intentional, so it's not a great example, either. Made less relevant by it being the target unit that is placed within btb contact and not the models whose turn it is being placed in btb contact. but I didn't list those as required conditions, so no worries.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The enemy unit in btb cannot move without "moving within 1" of an enemy model", and is not assaulting - therefore cannot move / run.

However, as they are NOT locked in combat then they can a) shoot and b) assault, as you explicitly ARE allowed to move within 1" when making an assault move.

Seems like a bizarre interpretation, and I wonder if your interpretation is actually correct. I see where you're going with that, however.

I still won't have a chance to read up on the assault section until I get home tonight, and I'm not entirely convinced - it seems silly to me that two models would be in base contact but can't do anything but stare at each other.

but my questions have been more or less answered - so thank you.

Well, one unit CAN do something - just not the Mawloc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The enemy unit in btb cannot move without "moving within 1" of an enemy model", and is not assaulting - therefore cannot move / run.

However, as they are NOT locked in combat then they can a) shoot and b) assault, as you expliciutly ARE allowed to move within 1" when making an assault move.

Slight confusion here on my part. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. If you are within 1" of the Mawloc you cannot move away from it because that would mean moving within 1" of an enemy unit even if you are moving away from the unit?

If this is the case, then units that assault a vehicle, immobilize it and are next to it in the next phase can not 'move away' because that would constitute moving within 1" of said unit right?

striogi wrote:

Regwon wrote:Because it doesnt specifically tell you that you may place the mawloc into base contact it means that you cant. You cant legally place a model within 1" of another without initiating an assault.

That's EXACTLY my point.
I'm saying that it doesn't make sense for you to be required to place a model within 1" of an enemy model and no assault occurs

I read most of the posts in this thread but I wanted to start with this particular fallacy. You are committing the fallacy of confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition.

Correct: "If a model assaults, then it may be moved within 1 inch"
Incorrect: "If a model is within 1 inch, then it may assault"
Incorrect: "If a model is within 1 inch, then it is assaulting"

As a bonus
Incorrect: "All models within 1 inch of another have assaulted each other"

Assaulting is an action that must be taken in order for the allowance of >>>>MOVING<<<< to within 1 inch. The Mawloc rules don't allow the Mawloc to >>>MOVE<<<, as in, to move at all let alone to move within 1 inch thus there is no interaction with the movement rules nor the assault rules. There is a huge difference between simply being within 1 inch of another model and initiating an assault or initiating a move.

Furthermore, there are several occasions when models can violate the movement rules because the movement rules only govern movement, the Mawloc's 'deepstrike' is not movement, it is considered as "having moved" because it must obey some of the deep strike rules, but at no time is it "moving", again, subtle but huge difference.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Whoops I misquoted that, here is what I meant to quote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The enemy unit in btb cannot move without "moving within 1" of an enemy model", and is not assaulting - therefore cannot move / run.

However, as they are NOT locked in combat then they can a) shoot and b) assault, as you expliciutly ARE allowed to move within 1" when making an assault move.

I ask you what rules govern this interaction? Surely not the assault rules since no assault has occurred yet, surely not the movement rules, surely not the shooting or deep strike rules... If no rule tells you that you must do something extraordinary, then you may follow the normal movement rules and act as normal and just walk away from the Mawloc... There would need to be some extraordinary rule that states "All models in base to base contact must do X // or cannot do Y". Unless my memory fails me, nothing exists which fits that criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To further clarify my point about Nos' flawed argument I will direct you to p11 of the rulebook, "Models in the way"

A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy
model during the Movement and Shooting phases –
this is only possible in an assault during the Assault
phase. To keep this distinction clear, a model may not
move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting.

Looking at what the word "Unless" means we can clarify this last sentence:

"...A model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting."

means

"If not assaulting, then may not move within 1."

But this does not govern what Nos is talking about. Nos is attempting to say that "Since they are within 1 inch of each other, then they are not allowed to move at all since that violates the movement rules" (Note the noun usage of "Within" in this sentence). Nos' confusion is a confusion over the syntax of the sentence. The adverb "within" is modifying the verb "Move" meaning, "One may not change location from farther away than 1 inch away to closer than 1 inch". If this were the prepositional or noun use of the word "Within" then yes, Nos would be correct as the sentence would mean "May not change location while in the interior", however, this is the adverbial usage and not the noun usage of "Within", thus he is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Gah, Striogi - have you read the rulebook section like I suggested?

MAKING AN ASSAULT MOVE = you are now in assault (assuyming you have range,e tc)

Has the Mawloc made an asault move? No? Then it is NOT in assault.

That's it. End. Finito. Stop, read the BRB section on assault, then comment further.

Actually i just got finished reading that section..
The section talks about how move units that are assaulting, how to move those models, however, page 35 specifically states,

Core Rulebook wrote:
Who can fight?
<remove fluff intro paragraph>
Units that have one or more model in base contact with enemies are said to be 'locked in combat'. Within such units the following models are said to be 'engaged' and must fight:
*Models in base contact with any enemy models
*Models within 2" of at least one model in their unit that is in base contact with any enemy models
All engaged models will fight in this turns assault phase...
<etc. ad nauseum>

This section doesn't actually say anything that an assault must be initiated, that models must be charged - it simply says that if models are in base contact, they MUST fight.

so... Mawloc can actually strike into assault. Since no assault move happened, they cannot get a +1 attack bonus or any of the rest of that.

i say play as you will. every one has opinions on this i say as a nid player who uses the Mawloc in every game around 1,000pts...the

answer is "no" even if you find a sneaky way to make it logically happen. The rules as intended you simply move everything 1

inch away and then place the mawloc centered in the spot the Large Blast occupied and if things cannot be moved 1 inch away they

are destroyed as mentioned.

i mean really we have a monster that can deepstrike all over the board and is almost risk free on the deepstrike and your trying to

make him more

deffdakka wrote:i say play as you will. every one has opinions on this i say as a nid player who uses the Mawloc in every game around 1,000pts...the

answer is "no" even if you find a sneaky way to make it logically happen. The rules as intended you simply move everything 1

inch away and then place the mawloc centered in the spot the Large Blast occupied and if things cannot be moved 1 inch away they

are destroyed as mentioned.

i mean really we have a monster that can deepstrike all over the board and is almost risk free on the deepstrike and your trying to

make him more

just because i am of the opinion that my terminators should be able to fly 60 inches every movement phase does not mean i should be allowed to play that way. The rules are very clear in this case, thus, we should play the way the rules play. Furthermore, you're completely violating the rules to play the way you want, that is terrible, people should only use a houserule to fill a hole, not to make up random crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The 1" rule only apples to the movement phase AFAIK. You need it to tell you you're locked into combat to be locked into combat. There's some debate as to whether an exploded vehicle let's you place models in b2b directly (it says place the models where the vehicle was). This usually isn't happening in the movement phase so a significant group of people believe models can be placed in b2b but wouldn't be locked in assault.

There is really no debate about it - if a vehicle explodes and the troops inside dont die, if their bases are large enough so that they cannot be placed without being within 1 inch of an enemy, they will be within 1 inch or even B2B contact with an enemy model, there is nothing it the rulebook that says there is anything wrong with this. Again, the 1 inch rule governs movement and nothing else.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:P.S. I hate using theoretical, crappily-written rules to argue Please play Magic or something with actual rules support if you intend to analyze this closely.

Amen to that!

Don't you think the rules would have covered this if it were possible? This is a direct violation of several rules so no definitely not.

G

Black Blow Fly wrote:Don't you think the rules would have covered this if it were possible? This is a direct violation of several rules so no definitely not.

G

To what are you referring?

I just had to get in on this thread. Many reasons support that a Mawloc can be locked in combat when it uses Terror from the Deep.

1. The one inch rule for movement near enemies does not apply the deep striking because deep striking is not a movement. Deep striking has its own set of rules for what happens if you land within one inch of enemy models. The Mawloc Terror from the deep says if you land on another model you ignore mishap but instead do as follows.

2. Being locked in combat can most certainly happen without assaulting as example given in the Necron FAQ from GW.
Q. If a damaged Necron Lord is unable to get
back up without being within 1” of an enemy
model is he considered destroyed, or does he go
right into combat?
A. A Necron Lord who gets up within 1" of an
enemy model must be moved directly into
combat with an enemy model within 1" of him
(neither counts as charging).

No magic one inch barrier stopping the Mawloc because it's not a movement, it ignores mishap when Terror from the Deep is triggered, and can get be locked in combat with out assaulting. Tyranids lost the 4thed Lictor that could assault out of deep strike but the Mawloc can deep strike into combat apparently. A single heavy support unit that costs almost 200 points, has a forty percent chance to hit the target. really sucks in combat, and has no ranged weapons.

The above is an explicit allowance and change in the rules. Trying to apply a specific allowance for Necron Lords to go into combat after WBB to an entirely seperate situation...nope, not gonna work.

Even magic doesn't have such lawyer-esque rules. For example, in the rules for a card it gives abilities to "Emrakul", not "Emrakul, the Aeons Torn". Nothing should be expected to be perfect.

Klawz wrote:Even magic doesn't have such lawyer-esque rules. For example, in the rules for a card it gives abilities to "Emrakul", not "Emrakul, the Aeons Torn". Nothing should be expected to be perfect.

Actually, the rules for "Magic: The Gathering" say that for Legendary Creatures, any rules after the first one can reference only the first part of the name.

From the Magic Comprehensive Rules:

201.4c Text printed on some legendary cards refers to that card by a shortened version of its name. This occurs only on a second reference or later; first references always use the card's full name. Instances of a card's shortened name used in this manner are treated as though they used the card's full name.

Christ, so much BS over nothing! It if says he can assault he can! If not, he can't!

Considering he deepstriked in he won't be able to assault, plus the minimum distance is 1" .


Don't question everything squire, back in the shed. go.

MicroElite wrote:I just had to get in on this thread. Many reasons support that a Mawloc can be locked in combat when it uses Terror from the Deep.

1. The one inch rule for movement near enemies does not apply the deep striking because deep striking is not a movement. Deep striking has its own set of rules for what happens if you land within one inch of enemy models. The Mawloc Terror from the deep says if you land on another model you ignore mishap but instead do as follows.

2. Being locked in combat can most certainly happen without assaulting as example given in the Necron FAQ from GW.
Q. If a damaged Necron Lord is unable to get
back up without being within 1” of an enemy
model is he considered destroyed, or does he go
right into combat?
A. A Necron Lord who gets up within 1" of an
enemy model must be moved directly into
combat with an enemy model within 1" of him
(neither counts as charging).

No magic one inch barrier stopping the Mawloc because it's not a movement, it ignores mishap when Terror from the Deep is triggered, and can get be locked in combat with out assaulting. Tyranids lost the 4thed Lictor that could assault out of deep strike but the Mawloc can deep strike into combat apparently. A single heavy support unit that costs almost 200 points, has a forty percent chance to hit the target. really sucks in combat, and has no ranged weapons.

The Necron FAQ is not applicable, do not make the mistake that people made about the Dark Angles FAQ and Combat Squadding. Furthermore, it is a different situation. Again, it is a violation of the rules to say that all units within 1 inch of each other are locked in combat; I demonstrated this fact earlier.

If people insist on applying the one inch enemy barrier movement rule to deep striking then you must apply them all. Doing this would make every deep striking unit better at landing on the table then a SM drop pod. Poking holes in the rules can cause other rules to leak through the hole and have unwanted consistences.

If deep strike is a form of movement then why do only certain movement rules apply and others don't? Is Deep striking a form of deployment or movement? Is only the deep strike scatter a movement?

Wouldnt the limitation in the rules on pg 95 (second to bottom pargraph on left side) pretty much stop an assault?

Deep striking units cant launch an assault because they are too disrupted by their deep strike move. It has a special caveat that the only way to override this is if it is clearly stated in their special rules that the unit can assault.

Yes the mawloc may end up in btb, no it cannot assault because the deepstrike rules say it cant assault unless the mawloc's own rules specifically say otherwise-- which they dont address.




Sliggoth

You can not place models within 1" of the enemy unless making an assault move.

In the case of the alley way assault then it's a 'multiple unit assault' and in the case of the exploding/destroyed vehicles with enemy units surrounding it, models unable to be placed count as destroyed/killed.

In the case of the Mawloc, if any models survive the Mawloc Nom Noming them and are pushed to the side, and the Mawloc CAN NOT be placed over 1" away, then you MUST treat it as a deep strike mishap. If there is any way to place the Mawloc that IS over 1" away then you must place it that way.

The rules for placing the Mawloc and the Rules for Deep striking are obviously difficult to understand, but once you work out all the limitations on unit placement (under the template, over 1" from an enemy) then you can easily follow the rules for placement. If you can not legally place the model the Deep Strike Mishap rules clearly explain what to do.


P.S. By your interpretation of the rules, if you get part of the template in impassable terrain, or off the table, then you can place the Mawloc there too... which is a pretty clear violation of the rules

Technically speaking, Deep strike is considered a move since it is done during the movement phase and the unit is considered moved after deep striking so you shouldn't be able to place him 1" anyways because you would be breaking the 1" rule. No where in the rulebook does it say models less than 1" away are in combat anyways. If it does, please reference. It simple says that you can't end a move 1"... which as I stated before would apply to Deep strike. You somewhat answered your own question. You are correct that you could place the Mawloc anywhere on the Template but you are still under the 1" rule since it doesn't say otherwise.

Lets not forget the most important fact. No where does the special rule even mention assault in any form or fashion. So if Codex > Rulebook, it needs to contradict it to be a valid argument. It even says on p95, "unless clearly stated in their special rules" when referring to assaults after Deep Strike. This situation does NOT clearly state anything about assault.

IMHO, This looks like an attempt to make the Mawloc a little stronger so it can survive an extra shooting phase. Seems kinda cheap.

Straight out of the big rulebook: Units that have one or more model in base contact with enemies are said the be 'locked in combat'. Withing such units, the following models are said to be 'engaged' and must fight: Models in base contact with any enemy models. Models withing 2" of at least one model in their unit yadayadayada

It gives the rules for moving into an assault before that, but the mawloc burrows into legal btb contact, why wouldn't they be considered locked?

Reason: the mawloc cannot be moved into LEGAL BtB contact when it deep strikes in.

stop cheesing up the codex, it's good enough the way it is and frankly i'm getting sick of people like you giving tyranid players a bad name!!!!!

I haven't actually done this in a real game, or even though about it really, just happened upon this thread and I thought it was a pretty interesting question. So don't get worked up, alright?

If you move the units struck by the attack the minimum distance to clear a large template, then replace it with the mawloc model, it is entirely possible to end up in BTB. How is that not legal?

SO:
- Deep Striking is considered movement.
- Models may not move within 1" of enemy models unless assaulting.
- The Mawloc is allowed to land on other models.
- Models in base to base contact with an enemy fight in close combat.

Which would seem to suggest that the Mawloc, if it finds itself in base contact with an enemy unit would assault them. But whether or not it is actually allowed to be there in the first place... going by the circular discussion going on here, that's something you're going to have to sort out with your opponent.


Moving right along...