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.

What happens when a Mawloc uses 'Terror from the Deep' to enter play underneath a building

Keep in mind that there are two kinds of buildings; impassable (which cannot be entered), and standard which can be embarked into much like a vehicle.

I assume the impassable building is treated as that; imapssable and will thus cause mishap. but what of the one treated like a vehicle (but not actually a vehicle)

This topic came up in a recent Planetstrike game. We were unable to come to a consensus on the matter.

The building would take a hit from the attack against AV14, probably being destroyed if the roll was good enough, I would imagine. Or it would just be considered impassable terrain as well for the purpose of "deep striking".

If played the latter method and the building wasn't destroyed, I'd call it a mishap I guess. *Shrug*

Considering the Building is AV14, and the Mawlocs thing is S6....

I would treat it as impassible terrain if unoccupied and an enemy vehicle if it was..

At S6, best it can destroy with TftD is AV12. Anyway on the embarkable building, it's another game breaker as far as I can tell. As a Nid player I'd offer that it would simply mishap and get on with the game.

EDIT: So Gwar, if you play it as an enemy vehicle when it's occupied, the building would get pushed out of the way?

No, I don't play with buildings because their rules are a cacophony of failure.

At a recent tournament, the judge ruled that my mawloc had to choose a level to burrow out of. It looked odd burrowing out of thin air, but that's the best that they could come up with.

Edit: Didn't notice at first that you said Planetstrike. I don't know if buildings are treated differently in Planetstrike.

Gwar! wrote:Considering the Building is AV14, and the Mawlocs thing is S6....

I would treat it as impassible terrain if unoccupied and an enemy vehicle if it was..

Ah, ya I didn't know the str of the hit from that attack.

puma713 wrote:At a recent tournament, the judge ruled that my mawloc had to choose a level to burrow out of. It looked odd burrowing out of thin air, but that's the best that they could come up with.

Edit: Didn't notice at first that you said Planetstrike. I don't know if buildings are treated differently in Planetstrike.

That would be a Ruin, not a Building. There's a substantial difference.

TftD specifies that any unit under the template (does not specify only enemy btw, so I suppose it means all units, friend, foe and neutral) suffer the hits, and any surviving models (including vehicles) are moved out of the way - apparently including immobile vehicles since it says that they retain their facing even if moved.

So... if it's an occupy-able building wouldn't you just move it out of the way, as per TftD?

I would say treat the mawloc deep strike like a drop pod.

Xca|iber wrote:

puma713 wrote:At a recent tournament, the judge ruled that my mawloc had to choose a level to burrow out of. It looked odd burrowing out of thin air, but that's the best that they could come up with.

Edit: Didn't notice at first that you said Planetstrike. I don't know if buildings are treated differently in Planetstrike.

That would be a Ruin, not a Building. There's a substantial difference.

TftD specifies that any unit under the template (does not specify only enemy btw, so I suppose it means all units, friend, foe and neutral) suffer the hits, and any surviving models (including vehicles) are moved out of the way - apparently including immobile vehicles since it says that they retain their facing even if moved.

So... if it's an occupy-able building wouldn't you just move it out of the way, as per TftD?

I'd say no, because a building is not a unit nor is it a vehicle.

Kevin949 wrote:I'd say no, because a building is not a unit nor is it a vehicle.

Other than the excepted aspects listed in the rules, they are treated as vehicles.

Being able to be attacked is one way they are treated like vehicles--if there are people in them.

If not, they are functionally terrain.

kirsanth wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:I'd say no, because a building is not a unit nor is it a vehicle.

Other than the excepted aspects listed in the rules, they are treated as vehicles.

Being able to be attacked is one way they are treated like vehicles--if there are people in them.

If not, they are functionally terrain.

I guess they weren't thinking of that then when they designed the mawloc. LoL Seems extremely ridiculous to move a building though.

Kevin949 wrote:
I guess they weren't thinking of that then when they designed the mawloc. LoL Seems extremely ridiculous to move a building though.

No more rediculous than a Str 6 creature shoving a superheavy tank, or a couple of monoliths, or even a titan out of the way.

Or a Tank-Shocking vehicle moving an immobile Mycetic Spore.

Or Chainswords...

Gwar! wrote:Or Chainswords...

You never cut down a tree with a chainsaw? Chainswords are probably the most believeable part about the grimdark far future...that and religious fanatacism on a galactic scale.

zeshin wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
I guess they weren't thinking of that then when they designed the mawloc. LoL Seems extremely ridiculous to move a building though.

No more rediculous than a Str 6 creature shoving a superheavy tank, or a couple of monoliths, or even a titan out of the way.

I can actually believe that more than a building, though only because the building "should" get turned into ruins after something like a mawloc burrowed out from under it. But, the rules don't work that way even if they don't make sense.

zeshin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Or Chainswords...

You never cut down a tree with a chainsaw? Chainswords are probably the most believeable part about the grimdark far future...that and religious fanatacism on a galactic scale.

I've cut down a tree with a chainsaw, and I know what happens when you hit something that isn't tree. The chainsaw jumps the feth back at you and tries to slice your damn head in half.

The same thing would happen with a chainsword - as soon as it hit something harder than flesh (like armor), the chain would sieze up, the momentum would be reversed, and it'd smack the silly Marine wielding it in the face.

Which is actually a hilarious mental picture.

Anyone else when they read the title think of a Mawloc Hitting it's head on the Foundation of a building, followed by the inhabitants of the building hearing alot of cussing from under the building? No? Didn't think so.


Did GW release something about Mawlocs/Trygons and Buildings when the Nid Codex come out? It was Cityfight, not Planetstrike so it might be different. I'll see if I can find it and post a link.

SaintHazard wrote:

zeshin wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Or Chainswords...

You never cut down a tree with a chainsaw? Chainswords are probably the most believeable part about the grimdark far future...that and religious fanatacism on a galactic scale.

I've cut down a tree with a chainsaw, and I know what happens when you hit something that isn't tree. The chainsaw jumps the feth back at you and tries to slice your damn head in half.

The same thing would happen with a chainsword - as soon as it hit something harder than flesh (like armor), the chain would sieze up, the momentum would be reversed, and it'd smack the silly Marine wielding it in the face.

Which is actually a hilarious mental picture.

That's hilarious. And I would assume in the far future that they would have more powerful engines on the chainsword maybe powered by the tears of the innocent or something.

@kevin If the building/bunker has an AV14 I would think it would stay intact as well as a tank with AV14...Planetstrike bunkers can even be dropped from orbit like a drop pod(ish). But for the rules it seems that a ruin would be treated like the terrain it is, and any buildings with an AV would get moved (as odd and surreal as that sounds). Of course I don't like the building rules outside of planetstrike and so just use ruins.