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 stand corrected, I was just looking at pg. 13.

It still would not mishap, but simply could not be placed.

It can be placed anywhere, including impassable teraiin. IF that impassable terrain is an enemy model INSTEAD of mishapping it does damage.

Jidmah wrote:I stand corrected, I was just looking at pg. 13.

It still would not mishap, but simply could not be placed.

lol if it can't be placed, that is called a mishap. That's why units mishap in the first place when they hit impassable terrain; because they can't be placed.

It can be placed anywhere, including impassable teraiin. IF that impassable terrain is an enemy model INSTEAD of mishapping it does damage.

This is correct. If it hits a model, its fine. But if it hits an actual terrain feature that is impassable, it mishaps regardless of of hitting an enemy model

The idea that the Mawloc's rule about not rolling for mishap if it arrives over models somehow applies to any circumstance where it also arrives over impassable terrain or partially off the table is false and incorrect. It is the same kind of flawed reasoning that was being thrown around for awhile when people were claiming that the 'fleet' rule allowed units with it to assault when disembarking from a moving closed-topped vehicle...basically people were saying that since fleet allows a unit to assault after running, this suddenly invalidated the basic restriction about assaulting out of a moving closed-topped vehicle.


This was incorrect, just as this new idea is incorrect. There are many factors that can cause a unit to mishap, with one of them being landing in proximity to other models. While the Mawloc's rule says that it does not roll for mishap when landing on models, this does not override any of the other factors that can induce a mishap roll. So long as any other factor involved requires a mishap roll to be made, then a mishap roll *must* be made (as otherwise you'd be ignoring those conditions without directive to do so).


So in short, yes Warp Quake will still cause a Mawloc to suffer a Deep Strike mishap.