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 find it Humorous that the Canadians are arguing that you cant in fact deep strike on enemy models.

I voted for no because it says you must place the model before rolling for scatter you cant place a model on top of a model sooo yea.

Also if someone where to do this i would let them because they ll mishap most likely.

I agree with storm breed 100%.

also to the person who said this is bout strict RAW not HIWPI, the poll clearly shows options for HIWPI....

Storm - reread the question, and note that NOWHERE in tftd does it state you can place a model over another model. All it clarifies is the initial placement - of the model, folllowing the actual DS rules - CAN be over another model. This then (assuming a hit, low enough scatter, etc) would trigger the condition for TftD to take over, instead of a mishap.

Again: tftd triggers *after* you have already placed the model. You then replace the model with a blast marker. This follows actual rules, not RAITTAW (rules as I think they are written)

 DarthOvious wrote:
How do Spore Mines Work? The only reason I ask is because there is a FAQ for spore mines that states this.

Q: How far away must my opponent deploy from any Spore Mines from
clusters that have arrived by Deep Strike? (p48)
A: 1".

I don't know if this relevant or not since I don't know how Spore Mines work.

It's not relevant. It's talking about deploying *after* arriving from Deep Strike, and therefore after you've already scattered. Essentially, it's just confirming the existing deployment rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - reread the question, and note that NOWHERE in tftd does it state you can place a model over another model. All it clarifies is the initial placement - of the model, folllowing the actual DS rules - CAN be over another model. This then (assuming a hit, low enough scatter, etc) would trigger the condition for TftD to take over, instead of a mishap.

Again: tftd triggers *after* you have already placed the model. You then replace the model with a blast marker. This follows actual rules, not RAITTAW (rules as I think they are written)

However the FAQ makes your point mean nothing. As it now specifically tells us we can place the model for he purpose of the special rule.

You are reading the rule stating we have allowance, we never did based on 6th rules, so they had to FAQ it, which they did. Again and this is important, although we treat something "like something else" in terms of how the game is played it doesn't always work out that way. The Mawloc is actually coming up from under the ground, not being placed on the model, I understand that is fluff, however it is also true which is what the TWtD has special rules attached to it and the other models with DS do not.

Again the FAQ doesn't blanket 6th edition DS rules.

Bottom line, you RAW must place the model on the table, you can not move my model for the purpose of DS, nor can you be within 1" on my models as DS counts as having Moved, when we move we can't be within 1".

HOWEVER, HIYPI, by all means go ahead and do it, make the mishap more likely and my charge that much easier

I voted yes and yes,

The table is the table, and that's all it's ever going to mean. IF I can squeeze a model inside of your squad whether it's within 1'' or not it's a legal starting point. Note that there is no way I could ever move an opponents OR friendly model to make room for my DS's base.

It of course will mishap if a direct hit but a scatter is of course possible.

I also feel that it plays "clean" and makes sense from a real war perspective. Which really is what matters, fun games.

There is precedence set /w mawloc and spore mine FAQ's.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing AGAINST FAQ's and logic and not arguing WITH either of those.

Stormbreed - the special rule that kicks in after you find out your mishap you mean? Whcih is after you have placed the model?

Teh FAQ is confirmation, nothing more. RAW place "anywhere on the table", given how GW talks about the table, means just that.

"Bottom line, you RAW must place the model on the table, you can not move my model for the purpose of DS, nor can you be within 1" on my models as DS counts as having Moved, when we move we can't be within 1".

HOWEVER, HIYPI, by all means go ahead and do it, make the mishap more likely and my charge that much easier "




Wrong, placing the initial DS model is not counted as having moved as it's not actually on the table yet. It's just a marker.

a squad who has done a successful DS counts as moved, not during or before.

I have never used this technique but I can imagine it being used, especially /w elder jetbikes desperately trying to stay in reserve in order to claim an objective and would otherwise get blown off the table. Would be important for said Eldar player to have gone 2nd : )

Aijec wrote:I voted yes and yes,

The table is the table, and that's all it's ever going to mean. IF I can squeeze a model inside of your squad whether it's within 1'' or not it's a legal starting point. Note that there is no way I could ever move an opponents OR friendly model to make room for my DS's base.


There is precedence set /w mawloc and spore mine FAQ's.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing AGAINST FAQ's and logic and not arguing WITH either of those.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - the special rule that kicks in after you find out your mishap you mean? Whcih is after you have placed the model?

Teh FAQ is confirmation, nothing more. RAW place "anywhere on the table", given how GW talks about the table, means just that.

Nos,

You keep saying this, but I see no reason why. You are saying you believe the rules allow you to DS ON TOP on my models, I'm saying you RAW do not have permission to do so, as you have to place the model on the table.

The FAQ was an "Asked Question" because people knew you can't DS on top of another model, which for Mawloc's special rule isn't fun! Luckily GW made a special allowance for this. (However I understand we interpret this FAQ differently) I see it as an Asked Question about a Special Rule, you see it as about DS.

Aijec, I was more referring to placing your models on top of mine, within 1inch is debatable as DS in counted as Movement, and in the movement phase you can not be within 1 inch. Also FAQ's do not set a precedence, there are multiple FAQ's which actually rule one way or the other depending on the nature of the question. FAQ's are not blanket rules for the BRB, Errata or amendments are, but not FAQ's from codex's.

Then answer this: at what point does TftD, the special rule, occur?

Is it after you place the model, or before?

Given you are convinced this is a special allowance for the urle, perhaps proving it would be worthwhile.

"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special
rule? (p51)
A: Yes."

Nos, the question was asked very specifically, if the Mawloc can DS onto an occupied point........

There is absolutely no reason for them to post this FAQ if you you are correct.

Regardless of when the special rule occurs, the FAQ is specifically allowance to go onto an occupied point, on top of that it is only if you want to use the special ability. They added that in so we don't think Trygons can do the same.

No, it is asking can this model DS, whcih then lets it use its rule. It does not alter TftD at all.

Regardless, "anywhere on the table", with the listed exceptions, INCLUDES models. So I will continue to play by the rules, and use this FAQ for what it is - a confirmation that yes, you can do this. Bear in mind prior to this model no normal GW model really absolutely wanted to DS on top of another model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Regardless, "anywhere on the table", with the listed exceptions, INCLUDES models..

Where in the brb does it say this ?

So your standpoint remains that you can DS on top of my unit to start, even though DS counts as having moved?

You are also still clearly wrong on the FAQ as your argument continues to change as to what the FAQ is in regards to.

"No, it is asking can this model DS"

This is untrue as the Mawloc has the DS rule in its profile.

I'll repost this again, and see if it makes a difference to Stormbreed's argument.

-Shrike- wrote:

"Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use X?"

Note that they didn't clarify the rule X. They clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind rule X. The fact that all other units mishap when Deep Striking in the same way is irrelevant.

-Shrike- wrote:
I'll repost this again, and see if it makes a difference to Stormbreed's argument.

-Shrike- wrote:

"Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an
enemy model on purpose in order to use X?"

Note that they didn't clarify the rule X. They clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind rule X. The fact that all other units mishap when Deep Striking in the same way is irrelevant.

I wish I could answer this, but I have no idea what you mean?

"Hey look, it's got rule X which would be even better if I could just put it on a unit when I Deep Strike."
"Can you do that?"
"I don't know, nobody would have wanted to do that until now. Let's look at the rules."
"Well there's nothing against it in the rulebook. Let's ask GW to be sure."

GW then releases an FAQ, saying that yes, it can DS on top of another model. They merely clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind that rule X gives you a reason to DS this way, because nobody had ever looked at the rules like that before.

They released a FAQ about a specific rule, not a blanket Errata or Amendment, I don't see how this is hard to understand.

You 100% must in this instance look at the bigger picture, read the tyranid codex and understand that the special rule actually represents the model emerging from under the ground. As much as you might hate to bring fluff into RAW, in some cases it is necessary, the Mawloc itself isn't placed when it comes up, a large blast marker is instead. Why do they place the marker and not the model? Well because we don't place models on top of each other, amongst other reasons.

Stormbreed wrote:

Aijec wrote:I voted yes and yes,

The table is the table, and that's all it's ever going to mean. IF I can squeeze a model inside of your squad whether it's within 1'' or not it's a legal starting point. Note that there is no way I could ever move an opponents OR friendly model to make room for my DS's base.


There is precedence set /w mawloc and spore mine FAQ's.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing AGAINST FAQ's and logic and not arguing WITH either of those.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stormbreed - the special rule that kicks in after you find out your mishap you mean? Whcih is after you have placed the model?

Teh FAQ is confirmation, nothing more. RAW place "anywhere on the table", given how GW talks about the table, means just that.

Nos,

You keep saying this, but I see no reason why. You are saying you believe the rules allow you to DS ON TOP on my models, I'm saying you RAW do not have permission to do so, as you have to place the model on the table.

The FAQ was an "Asked Question" because people knew you can't DS on top of another model, which for Mawloc's special rule isn't fun! Luckily GW made a special allowance for this. (However I understand we interpret this FAQ differently) I see it as an Asked Question about a Special Rule, you see it as about DS.

Aijec, I was more referring to placing your models on top of mine, within 1inch is debatable as DS in counted as Movement, and in the movement phase you can not be within 1 inch. Also FAQ's do not set a precedence, there are multiple FAQ's which actually rule one way or the other depending on the nature of the question. FAQ's are not blanket rules for the BRB, Errata or amendments are, but not FAQ's from codex's.

Precedent isn't concrete and I didn't intend to present it that way, just small pillars supporting my beliefs.

I clarify I stand beside what I've originally posted but of course can't imagine a player placing a model ontop of another model, idc if it's witin 1'' as I originally stated but it's not on the table if its ontop of a base or literally the model.

I believe we're on the same page.

It's a yes to both from me.
If my opponent wants to take the gamble and deliberately mishap, I won't argue.

I chose no to both.

Because I'm not convinced by the arguments that "Table" means table AND/OR models on the table. It seems obvious to me that Table means... the playing surface including scenery. So that's HIWPI.

I'm also not convinced by the argument that since TFTD doesn't allow DSing onto units and they clarified it in the FAQ part, not in the Errata part, therefore it gives us some insight into how the DS *should* work... yeah I don't buy it.

I understand the argument, but I believe the people making it are putting way too much faith in GW to make such a nuanced distinction. It's like that old saying - the rules designers aren't hiding little Easter eggs in the rules for you to find.

They designed a monster that says; "hey - here is a unique monster that comes up from the ground and eats people - if you deep strike him onto the enemy he doesn't get hurt - he hurts them instead!" But the rule is ambiguous - so someone asked GW ... "Well you say "if I deep strike onto someone..." when I'm using the Mawlock am I allowed to purposefully DS onto people?"
... and the answer is Yes. There's no hidden Easter Egg here about the "true" meaning of deep strikes in general. What is more likely - that they decided to given a hidden eater egg about all 40k deep striking in a 1 word answer in the Tyranid FAQ? Or that the GW designers originally thought the Mawlock wording was clear enough and that it allready allowed you to DS onto enemies and they just assumed everyone would do that - and when people starting asking they just added it to the FAQ, that yes, in fact the Mawlock CAN choose to DS onto enemy models in order to use it use it's special powers?

Seems obvious to me and that's HIWPI. But it's such a corner case that if it ever happened and my opponent REALLY wanted to - meh. I wouldn't care personally.

-Shrike- wrote:
"Hey look, it's got rule X which would be even better if I could just put it on a unit when I Deep Strike."
"Can you do that?"
"I don't know, nobody would have wanted to do that until now. Let's look at the rules."
"Well there's nothing against it in the rulebook. Let's ask GW to be sure."

GW then releases an FAQ, saying that yes, it can DS on top of another model. They merely clarified Deep Strike, bearing in mind that rule X gives you a reason to DS this way, because nobody had ever looked at the rules like that before.

Q: Is a vehicle hit by a Vengeful Tornado re sult literally hit on its
side armour, and therefore doe s it get the Obscured cover save if
Njal cannot see one of its side s? (p53)
A: No – Vengeful Tornado is not a shooting attack and
therefore allows no cover save. Essentially the tornado strikes
from directly above; the side armour is used to represent this.

So if we play your way we can easily say, well Doom's ability is a special ability as well correct?
No need to look anything else up as we have a FAQ that says a non shooting attack doesn't allow cover saves !

But wait!

Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted by the Doom of
Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability? (p58)
A: Yes.


Again FAQ's regarding SPECIFIC special rules are not blanket rules statements, I can see how we can look to them to set a viewpoint, but nothing more then that.

Oh look, another of these debates. Dear god they just need to FAQ this crap, two editions now almost.

Oh and a tornado strikes from above, a special ability like Spirit Leech is not described to be coming from above, it is coming from DoM itself. So yeah, those special abilities are not similar.

 deadrifler wrote:
Oh look, another of these debates. Dear god they just need to FAQ this crap, two editions now almost.

Oh and a tornado strikes from above, a special ability like Spirit Leech is not described to be coming from above, it is coming from DoM itself. So yeah, those special abilities are not similar.

Mawloc explodes from under them and I did bold the part about them saying as it is not a shooting attack no cover saves can be taken, which was the point. They've also ruled cover saves CAN be taken against the TFtD attack even though its coming from under them fluff wise just like the tornado is coming from above.

Basically sometimes the fluff of a tornado actually coming from above does matter.

No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

Reference: First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

Reference: First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

Thought the point of this thread was NOT to debate the rules. That's what the other (now closed) thread was for.
There's nothing new being added here.

 Happyjew wrote:

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

Reference: First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

in the position where you would like it to arrive

When a Mawloc arrives we have specific rules stating you don't use a Mawloc you use a Large Blast Marker and move the models out of the way. Since we are placing it where we want it to arrive I think we can agree that placing the Large Blast Marker works.

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

Reference: First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

in the position where you would like it to arrive

When a Mawloc arrives we have specific rules stating you don't use a Mawloc you use a Large Blast Marker and move the models out of the way. Since we are placing it where we want it to arrive I think we can agree that placing the Large Blast Marker works.

WRONG

REREAD the rule

NOTE the "IF" Clause

You ONLY place the LBM *if* you would mishap. Prior to this point you use the mawloc model - same as any other single model unit

Oh, and no, DS *placement* is not movement. If it were, then I presume you trigger dangerous terrain checkss when scattering - afterall, youre claiming it is movement? Oh, and you can never scatter into Impassable Terrain - meaning you cannot mishap from it. Oh, and you cannot scatter off the table, as units cannot move of f the table, normally

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 augustus5 wrote:
No need for an FAQ. This is really simple stuff and why the debate is raging so hard is incredible to me.

No and No.

Reference: First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

Unless a model has a rule to do otherwise, shouldn't this first and most basic concept of deep striking be followed?

Which you still need to do, even with the Mawloc.

That being said, since when I do use a Mawloc I attempt to DS on enemy models, so I skip this step, and instead use the lbm.

in the position where you would like it to arrive

When a Mawloc arrives we have specific rules stating you don't use a Mawloc you use a Large Blast Marker and move the models out of the way. Since we are placing it where we want it to arrive I think we can agree that placing the Large Blast Marker works.

WRONG

REREAD the rule

NOTE the "IF" Clause

You ONLY place the LBM *if* you would mishap. Prior to this point you use the mawloc model - same as any other single model unit

Oh, and no, DS *placement* is not movement. If it were, then I presume you trigger dangerous terrain checkss when scattering - afterall, youre claiming it is movement? Oh, and you can never scatter into Impassable Terrain - meaning you cannot mishap from it. Oh, and you cannot scatter off the table, as units cannot move of f the table, normally

Sorry you didn't read the post I quoted, I can understand.

First, place one model frorn the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive, and roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

You have to place that one model..... the moment you do as you're are DS it is a Mishap, so we can use the LBM, I also noted in my post that was HIWPI, no need for caps, lets keep it civil

I'm gonna delete this, and just say, you don't have permission to place your model on top of mine and if you try and argue that you can smash it into pieces you're admitting you're wrong. If you try and argue my model is "A PART OF THE TABLE" you're also admitting you're wrong.

I read it. The first part was a false statement - we do not have specific rules stating we dont use a mawloc; once we determine if it mishaps is the point at which we replace the model.

Sorry you didnt understand what you wrote, I can understand.

Incorrect. The model has not arrived. There is no movement until after the unit has actually managed to arrive, which is afer you determine mishap or no mishap.

Again, your interpretation breaks DS. Your claim, unsupported as it is, is that the initial placement - which isnt movement - is somehow movement. Whcih it isnt.

Again, answer - do you claim that the scatter is also movement? So it triggers difficult, dangerous, cannot move off the table, cannot move into impassable terrain, etc? THAT is your claim, so either you retract your claim - I recommend this - or you agree that you play DS differently to the entire gaming community I have ever met, coincidentally making Drop Pods immune to non-hit Mishaps.

So, "youre wrong" is the extent of your argument?

Thanks for conceding.