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.

Fizyx wrote:For the love of god, please do not start this again.

Anyone with half a brain knows what the intended purpose of the Mawloc is. Those that argue it are people who either

-Know the intention, but RAW is RAW and they will not play RAI until GW makes an official errata. This is known as "stubborn" in most circles, "obstinate" in others and "prickish" in most.

-Fail to acknowledge the intention, and argue RAW for why it will not work.

Of course neither of these positions acknowledges the fact that RAW itself is very unclear, and you can't make a simple judgment based on Page 95 vs. Page 13 of the BRB, since the rules contradict each other. Is the general rule applicable to the special deep-striking rules, or vice versa?

The best we can do is lock this topic, and sticky a topic that basically says "Here is where we are with this argument, please stop clogging our intellects with this garbage argument."

As far as the original question, I do think the rules are VERY clear on this. If the unit is touched by the large blast template, move it out of the way. If it has nowhere to go, it is destroyed. I find it very similar to surrounding an enemy tank before wrecking it, causing the unit inside to have nowhere to go and subsequently destroying the unit.

You're right, we should just disregard the entire rulebook and "feel" our way through the game; I know, I'll channel the GW rules writers through a Ouija board and they can tell us what they "meant" when they were writing the book and not what they actually said.

RaI is a crutch for people to try and hide behind when the RaW don't say what they want it to say.

I fail to see how page 95 and 13 are contradictory as page 13 is specifically talking about terrain and placement of your model on some hill or something where it might fall over and chip the paint or shatter into a million pieces (if it's a bloodthirster I can almost promise you the wings will fall off).

You and likeminded individuals seem to think that the "deep strikes into an enemy unit" phrase means something completely different when it clearly means that if you end your deep strike (you know after the scatter thing) in an enemy unit, the model is replaced with a marker. I know, the clear wording of DS rules is contradictory to people that want to make the mawloc an uber-unit, you can call me a prick all you want but dem's the rules.

agnosto wrote:
You and likeminded individuals seem to think that the "deep strikes into an enemy unit" phrase means something completely different when it clearly means that if you end your deep strike (you know after the scatter thing) in an enemy unit, the model is replaced with a marker. I know, the clear wording of DS rules is contradictory to people that want to make the mawloc an uber-unit, you can call me a prick all you want but dem's the rules.

No, that is your interpretation of the rules.

If you want to rules lawyer fine, but if you are going to state the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the page 13-14 rules for movement and placement, then you are following RAI. If you want to follow your own rules as written, you have to ignore that intent and follow RAW.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to include RAI, then the Mawloc can perform its intended function. If you want to adhere to RAW, then you can not assume the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the normal rules for placement, therefore you can place the model anywhere on the table.

Or we could all just shut up about it. No matter what transpires on this forum, I'm going to make sure my opponent knows my intentions regarding the Mawloc before the game. If he doesn't agree I will bring out a second list I have prepared that does not include a Mawloc. I think that's a pretty fair solution until all this chatter settles down.

I hate this RAW + Rules argument it holds no water. RAI is by definition the rules. RAW is a tool we have for interpreting those rules, however NO ONE plays by strict RAW. Otherwise:

Space Wolf Scouts don't have the scouts rule.

Tyranid Close combat weapons are entirely useless and have no in game effect.

Yriel's spear is useless and has no in game effect.

Shrike can't inflitrate with a unit he deploys with.

Ramming is impossible.

IG have useless frag grenades that do nothing.

And my person favourite place a dice on the table with a 6 on the side on rolling it with your hand so the 6 faces upwards is an entirely legal dice roll.

Agnosto do you play all the above rules?

FlingitNow wrote:NO ONE plays by strict RAW

that is a gross generalization, you do not know for a fact that no one plays by strict RAW.

This is YMDC, and the point here is to provide a multitude of options for people to select from when they have a rules query

Strict RAW, HWYPI or HIWPI, and RAI

RAW is like math, there is a right and wrong answer, do not get offended when people tell you something is against RAW, they are being literal.
HWYPI/HIWPI is a personal interpretation, or a collective interpretation of the people you play with, this is the most helpful bit.
RAI is an interpretation based on fluff or vague references to rules that make no sense or dont function as written, it can be interpreted multiple ways, and in MOST cases should be avoided in these discussions; they tend to end in arguements.

as I said earlier wrote:
RAW: TftD does not work. we know this.

HWYPI/HIWPI: The Mawloc can be "placed" on top of other models, models that can't fit anywhere on the immediate outside edge of the large blast template (due to impassable terrain/other models) are destroyed. In all reality, the Mawloc is a gimmicky unit that might get to do this twice in a game, for 170 points, his one "cool" ability should be pretty badass.

RAI: i THINK the intention of TFTD was for it to be played in the same manner as I listed the HWYPI/HIWPI.








NB4TL

RAW is like math, there is a right and wrong answer, do not get offended when people tell you something is against RAW, they are being literal.

I don't get offended when people say somethig is wrong under RaW, I get annoyed when people try to pass off RAW as the rules and claim anyone not obeying RAW is cheating/making up rules/ Breaking rules/making house rules, as this is not always the case.

I don't know anyone that would play half of the silly RAW rules I've, do you anyone that would play Warhammer by strict RaW meaning players can just select what roll they want from each dice? That is not a game...

Fizyx wrote:

agnosto wrote:
You and likeminded individuals seem to think that the "deep strikes into an enemy unit" phrase means something completely different when it clearly means that if you end your deep strike (you know after the scatter thing) in an enemy unit, the model is replaced with a marker. I know, the clear wording of DS rules is contradictory to people that want to make the mawloc an uber-unit, you can call me a prick all you want but dem's the rules.

No, that is your interpretation of the rules.

If you want to rules lawyer fine, but if you are going to state the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the page 13-14 rules for movement and placement, then you are following RAI. If you want to follow your own rules as written, you have to ignore that intent and follow RAW.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to include RAI, then the Mawloc can perform its intended function. If you want to adhere to RAW, then you can not assume the intention of the deep-strike rules was to follow the normal rules for placement, therefore you can place the model anywhere on the table.

Or we could all just shut up about it. No matter what transpires on this forum, I'm going to make sure my opponent knows my intentions regarding the Mawloc before the game. If he doesn't agree I will bring out a second list I have prepared that does not include a Mawloc. I think that's a pretty fair solution until all this chatter settles down.

I'm simply stating that movement through terrain rules does not apply to deep striking rules which are spelled out in a different section of the book. Yes, it's considered movement but has its own rules in an entirely different section of the rules book as it is a very specific form of movement.

Following RaW doesn't neuter the Mawloc, you place your model in front of the enemy unit and then roll the scatter dice. You can't place it in the unit because it's not a template or marker and is not "on the table". Compound this with nothing in the Mawloc's rules that exempt it from the model placement aspect of the deep striking rules, just the rules governing mishaps in a specific situation.

Talk to an ork playerif you want to hear about random events that are not always helpful.

We can agree to disagree and I congratulate you on being fair-minded enough to carry an alternative list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FlingitNow wrote:I hate this RAW + Rules argument it holds no water. RAI is by definition the rules. RAW is a tool we have for interpreting those rules, however NO ONE plays by strict RAW. Otherwise:

Space Wolf Scouts don't have the scouts rule.

Tyranid Close combat weapons are entirely useless and have no in game effect.

Yriel's spear is useless and has no in game effect.

Shrike can't inflitrate with a unit he deploys with.

Ramming is impossible.

IG have useless frag grenades that do nothing.

And my person favourite place a dice on the table with a 6 on the side on rolling it with your hand so the 6 faces upwards is an entirely legal dice roll.

Agnosto do you play all the above rules?

I can honestly tell you that I do not use any of the above rules.
That said, I have a friend that plays space wolfs and he considers the scouts to not have the scout USR.

You are a fellow Tau player, you should be used to codex items that don't work.

I'm not saying that we should use RaW to turn our brains off; I'm just stating that when the rules are clear (as they are with model placement while using deep strike), why not use them?

agnosto wrote:Following RaW doesn't neuter the Mawloc, you place your model in front of the enemy unit and then roll the scatter dice. You can't place it in the unit because it's not a template or marker and is not "on the table". Compound this with nothing in the Mawloc's rules that exempt it from the model placement aspect of the deep striking rules, just the rules governing mishaps in a specific situation.

Even this is open to interpretation. I've used this analogy in a different thread already on a different forum. My wife would kick my ass if I told her "I was just following rules as written" when I remove the tablecloth to "put the dishes on the table." On the table means just that, on the table. On top of another model is still "on the table."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At this point I'm just being nit-picky, so I'm going to stop until I have something more to say rather than trying to beat a dead horse.

You are a fellow Tau player, you should be used to codex items that don't work.

I'm not saying that we should use RaW to turn our brains off; I'm just stating that when the rules are clear (as they are with model placement while using deep strike), why not use them?

Your friend has issues.

Yeah I'm used to codex items that don't work like well half the army list and some that are positively harmful to the army (Aun'Va).

I'm glad you're not in the Gwar "RAW is all that matters FAQs are wrong if they disagre blah blah blah" camp. I still think RaI is clear on this and I would allow someone to choose to DS on top of my unit if they wanted.

This doesn't make the Mawloc uber as this is his only worthwhile attack. A unit of Kroot should beat him up in CC and he has no other ranged weapons. It is his only use and it is still unreliable and still 170 points. It is clear RaI that he allowed to do this so why be TFG and try to rules laywer it?

I would just like to check; Everyone has glossed over the potential for the TftD Mawloc rule could move a unit/tank 1-100" as the term "avoiding" is so ambiguous and does not definitely mean "pick the closest side"/"do not travel through".

If it said, "..whilst not passing through impassable terrain and maintaining squad coherency.." it would be a simpler rule.

Except it DOES NOT NEED TO - the rules for "moving" (as shown by them using the term "move") *state* you cannot move through impassable terrain.

You may not agree that they mean "move" when they write "move", however that does not make you correct.

edit: this is why noone has "glossed over" as you say - noone else ignores that the rulebook term "move" is used.

FlingitNow wrote:
This doesn't make the Mawloc uber as this is his only worthwhile attack. A unit of Kroot should beat him up in CC and he has no other ranged weapons. It is his only use and it is still unreliable and still 170 points. It is clear RaI that he allowed to do this so why be TFG and try to rules laywer it?

I dunno, you'd have to be rolling 6's with that toughness and no power weapon so he gets all his savings throws. Since they can field so many of these things, you just run them across your opponents lines and bam, instant disruption and death; for 1/3 of a 1500 pt army you effectively tie up an entire IG or gunline army while the assault units close in for the kill. It forces you to go mechanized to avoid it and, IMHO, I don't think mech armies are fun to play.

I'll tell you why to rules lawyer it; I play tau and need all the help I can get vs. insane cheese assaulty armies in a meta-game that loves assault.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it DOES NOT NEED TO - the rules for "moving" (as shown by them using the term "move") *state* you cannot move through impassable terrain.

They also add that models may have special rules allowing this. Most folks I have actually talked to think that being able to place models anywhere on the table via the Deepstrike rules allows this. As the example is flying over, tunneling under does not seem a stretch.

/shrug

I'll tell you why to rules lawyer it; I play tau and need all the help I can get vs. insane cheese assaulty armies in a meta-game that loves assault.

That's not metagame that's 40k, the hilarious difference between 40k and Fantasy? A gunline in Fantasy can be an almost auto win army where as a gunline in 40k is auto lose. In competitive play the gunline is dead and mech is the only option. In non-competitive play trying to rules lawyer against obvious intent is being TFG... (we have a Tau player that claims carbines just need to cause a wounding hit to cause a pinning check, pinning is just so irrelevant that nobody bothers arguing with him).

So many things stuff a gunline army it's untrue. These days most armies can assault you in turn 1 a static gunline is dead.

The Mawlocs arrive from reserve so the chances of all 3 coming up and not scattering unfavourably is pretty low. I'd never advise a Tyranid player to take 3 Mawlocs.

Kirsanth - this is in reference to the models being moved out of the way - tunnelling under is the Mawloc, not the modesl being moved.

Given it simply states they are "move"d with no special allowances (THEY are not deepstriking!) then you simply *cannot* move through impassable terrain, unless you havea rule statring otherwise.

FlingitNow wrote:
The Mawlocs arrive from reserve so the chances of all 3 coming up and not scattering unfavourably is pretty low. I'd never advise a Tyranid player to take 3 Mawlocs.

As far as the metagame thing; I go back to 2nd edition so I remember when gunlines worked and in 3rd edition when you had tau and eldar skimmers popping up behind cover, shooting, then dropping behind cover; there was much more shooting in those days. I missed 4th edition so don't know what it was like then.


Hive tyrants give you a +1 on reserve and so do lictors and lictors act as homing beacons so if you can run a lictor up, you can plant a mawloc within 6" with no scatter. Doubtful with as fragile as a lictor is but possible.

All I know is that I want the same guy that wrote the tryanid 'dex to write the next tau one.

Hive tyrants give you a +1 on reserve and so do lictors and lictors act as homing beacons so if you can run a lictor up, you can plant a mawloc within 6" with no scatter. Doubtful with as fragile as a lictor is but possible.

Lictors HAVE to arrive by DS so can't be relied upon to come on before the Mawlocs. Also they have to be in place at the start of their movement phase for the beacon effect. Meaning that you knowing he has a Mawloc have decided to just sit there within 6" of his very killable lictor, not kill it and not bother moving away from it...

If that happens I have no sympathy for you.

All I know is that I want the same guy that wrote the tryanid 'dex to write the next tau one.

QFT

FlingitNow wrote:

Hive tyrants give you a +1 on reserve and so do lictors and lictors act as homing beacons so if you can run a lictor up, you can plant a mawloc within 6" with no scatter. Doubtful with as fragile as a lictor is but possible.

Lictors HAVE to arrive by DS

No, Lictors CANNOT Arrive via Deep Strike.

No, Lictors CANNOT Arrive via Deep Strike.

Whilst technically true the point still stands. They have to start in reserve and then arrive in a fashion akin to DS but governed by their own set of rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it DOES NOT NEED TO - the rules for "moving" (as shown by them using the term "move") *state* you cannot move through impassable terrain.

You may not agree that they mean "move" when they write "move", however that does not make you correct.

edit: this is why noone has "glossed over" as you say - noone else ignores that the rulebook term "move" is used.

As I have pointed out on other occasions on this thread, it is ambiguous wherever or not the term "move" as used in the TftD Mawloc rule is the gospel rulebook term or if its just a verb used in context of the rule. The plain and simple fact that you cannot comprehend or more likely, unwilling to even acknowledge this is a valid counter-argument is quite fail.

As I have pointed out on other occasions on this thread, it is ambiguous wherever or not the term "move" as used in the TftD Mawloc rule is the gospel rulebook term or if its just a verb used in context of the rule. The plain and simple fact that you cannot comprehend or more likely, unwilling to even acknowledge this is a valid counter-argument is quite fail.

But making this arguement could result in the vehicle ending up 10", 20" or more from it's starting place which is just dumb.

RaI is with nosferatu on this as well as RaW so what is the point in arguing?

Razerous - no, it is not a valid counter argument. "Fail" on your part.

You are told to move, and therefore you follow the rules you are given in order to move - those in the rulebook. to do otherwise is something you do not have permission for - you are trying to "move" without using the rulebook rules for such, and have no permission to do so.

I agree that, if there was no rulebook definition of the term then yes, the English would allow you to do as you said. Luckily there IS a rulebook definition for that term so you use it. There is NO CHOICE in the matter.

Just because you see it as valid does not, in a rules debate, actually MAKE it valid. I have acknowledged it as a counter argument, it simply is not valid.

nosferatu1001 wrote: Luckily there IS a rulebook definition for that term

Where. Page number and general location. "move", just so we are clear.

Starting page 11 - "move", "movement", "moving" all refer to this section as a basic.

For example "Infantry move up to 6"" first paragraph under "movement distance"

ANYTHING that uses "move", "movement", "moving" refers to this section as a starting point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Starting page 11 - "move", "movement", "moving" all refer to this section as a basic.

For example "Infantry move up to 6"" first paragraph under "movement distance"

ANYTHING that uses "move", "movement", "moving" refers to this section as a starting point.

Example; Impassable terrain, P13, under Terrain Types. BGB. I think this firm belief of the legitimacy of the "term" move is a bit suspect. Sure, there are rules for movement detailed to a great degree in the movement section of the BGB (P11) but citing that the word "Move" is used as a proper definable referable term.. Nah.

Well, you have rules for using the term "move", you dont have permission to use other rules

Disbelieve it all you like, movement is strongly defined - you are essentially stating that this single example of move is somehow special, when you are given absolutely no reason to think so.

As i said, not a valid argument.

Man, sure seems like the mawloc butthurt is strong in this thread.

Between the "I will rules lawyer because I play gunline tau and cant win" and the "the rules are ambiguous, that means my interpretation is right" we have some real winners.

This seems kind of silly. It says in the rule "Avoiding impassable terrain". The tense suggests that the models have to move while not passing over or through impassable terrain, like a fallback. Saying that if the unit is in the middle of 30 inches of impassable terrain and cant move that they somehow get thrown outside of that 31" is. . . dumb. Unless I am understanding the argument wrong, then the rule works fine. Nothing in it suggests the models can move through impassable terrain. In fact, it specifically says "whilst. . .avoiding impassable terrain".

You must move the squad "WHILST. . avoiding impassable terrain". So if you have no path out of the impassable terrain, the unit is lost.

Yep, most people seem to "get" that "move" means move, as used everywhere else in the rulebook.

Yeah you are right but some people don't want the word move to refer to the movement rules in the ruling they want to basically get out of the attack for no reason other than they don't want it to work because they use other armies...

If they want to rules lawyer it to be ineffective a better approach would be to point out it refers to the Large Blast Template, which of course doesn;t exist in 40k we have a large blast marker...

Doesn't even have to refer to the normal moving rules. It says "move that unit", which I really hope we can all agree is the physical action of picking up the models of the affected unit and placing them in a new spot somewhere on the board. Then it says "whilst maintaining squad coherency", and here (for some reason) squad coherency means what it always means, even though according to rules lawyers, apparently the word "move" doesn't. So you must move the unit WHILST keeping these models no more than 2" from one another. The next piece says "and avoiding impassable terrain" .

If we look at the sentence, we see that it says whilst maintaining AND avoiding. You must maintain AND avoid. Maintain AND avoid. You must MAINTAIN squad coherency, and AVOID impassable terrain, during this move that may or may not refer to an official movement. If you can't MOVE WHILE avoiding impassable terrain, the unit is lost.