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.

And I dont play nids and I think it's not unreasonable to place it on top.

What we need is someone who has the know-how to obtain all the relevent GW staffs home numbers and all call them asking the same question, sure even if they flip flop non stop as long as the number of callers is odd we'll have our answer.

Just any FAQ (well, if it actually changes the rules to override page 14 it really should be an errata to the DS rules to allow every unit to do it, if they want) would do - fingers crossed....

I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

Why an errata? The rules already work how GW want them to so an errata wouldn;t make much sense an FAQ listed under clarification that the Mawloc can DS directly on top of other units just like anything else would be fine. To be honest I doubt GW will even address this question as the answer is so blatantly obvious.

Because we can argue a FAQ all day, Errata are solid rules changes.

I'll take Deep Strike FAQ or Deep Strike Errata... somebody won't like the answer, but it will solve the question for all these units once and for all either way. After all, we are talking about when and where you can Deep Strike... The Mawloc just benefits, or it doesn't by the clarification.

Looks like just about all that can be said on this one has been said, I'm willing to place it into the hands of the GW Rulez Ninjaz now. With any luck, someone on that front has been listening... reading... thinking... and writing as we debated. (lol, probably wishful thinking)

"Drinks..." yeah, weekend is coming up. Drink purchases are in order!

Thanks to all who have weighed in on this topic and remained calm, much appreciated.

I'm off to finish plans for the 10K Apocalypse battle this weekend - woot!

Tac

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just any FAQ (well, if it actually changes the rules to override page 14 it really should be an errata to the DS rules to allow every unit to do it, if they want) would do - fingers crossed....

InquisitorFabius wrote:I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Because we can argue a FAQ all day, Errata are solid rules changes.

Yea sorry guys, it won't be an errata because it doesn't need to be. Interpreting the RaW correctly already allows for DS onto enemy units, so at best you will see a clarification FAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't address it at all, it is so cut and dry.

A lot of people are using arguments about general versus specific rules, or rules which reference or don't reference other sections of rules.

Given the general sloppiness that GW employ in writing rules, which this thread is very good evidence to prove, it is highly unlikely that GW have a hierarchy of rules in mind when they write another rules.

So I think it is a weak base for an argument either way.

apwill4765 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Just any FAQ (well, if it actually changes the rules to override page 14 it really should be an errata to the DS rules to allow every unit to do it, if they want) would do - fingers crossed....

InquisitorFabius wrote:I do not want an FAQ, I want Errata.

InquisitorFabius wrote:Because we can argue a FAQ all day, Errata are solid rules changes.

Yea sorry guys, it won't be an errata because it doesn't need to be. Interpreting the RaW correctly already allows for DS onto enemy units, so at best you will see a clarification FAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't address it at all, it is so cut and dry.

Yea, I couldn't let this tidbit just pass under the bridge.

If it is so cut and dry, why has it spawned multiple, mutiple page threads? I mean your statement here is akin to running around the room with your hands over your ears just yelling "NAHNAHNAHNAHNAHNAH!!"

I am all for RAW, but you do NOT have a clear cut case of RAW here as you want to try and claim. The proof being the vast number of arguments against your "RAW".

Seconded

Apwil, your "RAW", as has been shown many times,requires ignoring rules. Deep strike is movement, page 14 restrictions apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Seconded

Apwil, your "RAW", as has been shown many times,requires ignoring rules. Deep strike is movement, page 14 restrictions apply.

Just the rules that don't apply to deep strike in the first place. Oh boy, and round and round we go.

EDIT: Also, it isn't 'my' RaW, it is the RaW, as in, the way the rules are written and structured in the BGB

EDIT2: Also, your 'RaW' requires that you ignore entire sections of the actual rules as written as 'redundancies' that GW places on some rules but not on others. Guess what, not redundancy, qualification. These are qualifications the DS rules don't have.

EDIT3: Also, how has this thread not been locked yet?

Just more running around the room yelling, "NAHNAHNAHNAHNAHNAH!".

Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye!

DS is movement. The movement rules require that you cannot place models in impassable terrain unless you specify otherwise

you have not shown any rules that specify otherwise for DS, in fact your argument flip flops between DS is specific and "Anywhere" is specific, everytime one is shown to be wrong you flip back to the other.

It is not ignoring, I have repeatedly shown you what "specific" means as far as GW is concerned, and this rule does not specify it.

I suggest lock thread with "if you want to ignore the rules, do so and call it RAW"

Goody. I get to pick who gets the last word.

It's unclear. Whether "anywhere" is intended to include on top of enemy units or impassible terrain is impossible to know for sure, though the Mawloc has made some of us question this assumption.

We all look forward to a nice clear FAQ.

And stick a fork in it.