INAT FAQ - Deep Strike / Mawloc - Disappointment :(

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.

**Brother Ramses**

apwill4765 wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:
agnosto wrote:
apwill4765 wrote:

Yes. Those arguments are TFG arguments, and make absolutely no sense when looking at the actual rule, and not some people's inability to make simple abstractions (i.e. "On the table not on models that are on the table HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!") (clarification).

Better?

Wow, I'm glad you cleared that all up and decided that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is TFG; how very mature of you.

Yea well that is Apwill's m.o. He throws out the TFG tag on anyone that disagrees with him like Gwar throws out the "you're cheating" to anyone that doesn't agree with his RAW opinion.

I call's 'em as I see's 'em

Hahaha, yea I know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

niceas wrote:Meh - Brother Ramses earned my first ignore.

Tactica - while I appreciate that you have conveyed your opinion in a reasonable manner, I do believe that you are deliberately trying to use the rules to corrupt the intention behind the model. If you have doubts as to what the designers intention was with the Mawloc, re-read the entire entry (including the 'fluff'), and the RAI becomes evident. That doesn't change the RAW aspect of the rules, but to say that it wasn't what was intended is being very obstinent.

Thanks for the ignore, I will take it as a badge of honor.

However, to call Tactica obstinate when his opinion of RAW does not try and skew the chances of increased mishaps to trigger Terror of the Deep while your opinion chooses to increase them through clever manipulation and interpretation of the rules is amusing if not outright ironic.

As has been pointed out several times by what would be "our" camp, we are not denying you that Terror of the Deep occur, just that it occur along the same lines as deep strike mishaps have always occurred. Your camp's argument based on points cost, model cost, perceived fluff, and perceived useful stats along with the desire to increase deep strike mishaps beyond the game mechanics to trigger more Terror of the Deep results seems much more obstinate and downright dishonest.

**Dracos**

yakface wrote:1) Q: Does the initial Deep Striking model in a unit have to be placed on the tabletop?

A: In our opinion, no. The term 'on the table' here refers to anywhere within the playing area (typically a 4'x6' area) rather than a model being physically on the table. This is why we have ruled that you are allowed to Deep Strike directly over an enemy unit. Of course only a few units actually WANT to do this, and that's why we've ruled in those particular codex areas rather than try to make a general Deep Strike clarification.

2) Q: Is Deep Strike movement?

A: Yes, we consider the act of arriving via Deep Strike as movement, which is exactly why models who are Deep Striking can't be placed within 1" of enemy models.

3) Q: If Deep Striking is movement, how can the initial model be placed within 1" of an enemy model?
A: Yes, once the unit arrives via Deep Strike it is considered to have made a special movement to that point, but in our opinions the actual matter of determining where the unit will arrive (placing the initial model and rolling for scatter) is *not* considered movement...this is simply determining where the unit will actually arrive.

This concept is backed up by how we've seen most people play...there are some who believe that the initial placed model fully counts as being on the table with the scatter being some sort of bizzaro movement itself, but most everyone we've ever played against recognizes that placing the model and scattering them is an abstract idea, which is why that initial model is able to scatter fully over an enemy unit if the roll is high enough to put him on the other side of it.

4) Q: If you can Deep Strike directly over enemy units how do you put the initial model down?
A: In our opinion this is covered by the 'wobbly model' rule...if you're concerned about paint jobs (as you should be), mark the spot with your finger, a die, etc until the final Deep Strike point is determined.

So hopefully that clears things up a bit as to the reasoning behind the rulings...and I'll see if I can't add a general Deep Strike clarification to the next update that will satisfy you a bit more without going too crazy into the realm of confusing people.

Thanks for taking the time to address this. I also disagree strongly with your assertion that placing your initial model on enemy models is allowed.

The reason I disagree is simple: All models are impassible terrain, and impassible terrain rules specify that models may not be placed in impassible terrain. Using the same word, Deep Strike tells you to place models anywhere on the board. If you place a model in impassible terrain for its initial deepstrike position, then you are breaking the impassible terrain rule

I'm curious how the council reconciles this incongruity, which you did not address in your explanation.

**Saldiven**

Dracos wrote:
The reason I disagree is simple: All models are impassible terrain, and impassible terrain rules specify that models may not be placed in impassible terrain. Using the same word, Deep Strike tells you to place models anywhere on the board. If you place a model in impassible terrain for its initial deepstrike position, then you are breaking the impassible terrain rule

I'm curious how the council reconciles this incongruity, which you did not address in your explanation.

I believe this one is pretty easy to address. Yakface, please correct me if I incorrectly follow your reasoning.

Firstly, the rules do not prevent "placement" of models on impassable terrain. The rules say you cannot "move" into or through impassable terrain.

The INAT.FAQ council is of the opinion that the initial "placement" of the model from which the scatter role is determined does not constitute "movement." In their interpretation, "movement" does not occur until after the scatter die is rolled and final placement of the deep striking unit is determined. If, after determining final placement, the model/unit is then in impassable terrain, then you follow the rules for that.

This is actually addressed in Yak's point number "3" in the section you quoted.

**nosferatu1001**

No, the rule states a model may not be PLACED in impassable terrain.

**Brother Ramses**

Like I said, it is just a clever manipulation of the rules even pointed out in the explanation:

Yak wrote:.....but in our opinions the actual matter of determining where the unit will arrive (placing the initial model and rolling for scatter) is *not* considered movement...this is simply determining where the unit will actually arrive.

So while they consider deep strike movement for all intents and purposes, the actual placement is not.

As if there is a break in the entire process that they have labeled as movement to which they insert non-movement.

Like pre-meditated murder is murder, but a lawyer states that the actual pulling of the trigger of the gun that murders the person is not murder. The end result is still murder, but the pulling of the trigger that fires the bullet that commits the murder is not. Okie dokie!

So their opinion is that the actual placement is not movement and therefore not subject to the on-top or within 1" rule yet the result ends up breaking the rule nonetheless. Hence the fact that they have ruled deep strike movement for all intents and purposes is moot.

**Burger Rage**

Klawz wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:
Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?
Does his phrasing matter? He meant that, when you roll the 2D6+scatter, that doesn't make you mishap. It's only when you hit an enemy model/impassable terrain do you mishap.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I blame not having enough coffee late in the work day when I posted that.

Deep Striking is a confusing set of rules when you look at them and try to break them down. The first step calls for you to place a model anywhere on the table that you would like the unit to arrive. It doesn't specify that the location of the model must adhere to the standard movement rules, in fact the 'anywhere on the table, position you would like the unit to arrive' (RB 95) would seem to give you free reign to place it wherever you want.

To further add to the confusion the rules do not specify when you check for Deep Strike Mishaps. What is the difference between 'models in a deep striking unit being deployed' and placing the first model in the first step? Do you check as soon as you place the first model on the table where you would like it to arrive? Do you check after you roll the scatter? Do you check both times?

**Brother Ramses**

Burger Rage wrote:
Klawz wrote:
ChrisCP wrote:
Burger Rage wrote:No, Mishap isn't a random occurence from deep striking. It's an event that occurs when a unit deep strikes into a position occupied by another model or impassable terrain. There isn't a chance to roll a mishap when you scatter, you scatter into a situation that causes a mishap. But you don't roll the dice and get a mishap based on what you roll and looking at a chart or rule.

Saying your units should do random things not even remotely supported by the rules isn't helping anyone.

So just to help you clarify your thoughts, you are saying;
A) The roll of 2D6 and a scatter does not have the effect on the occurence of a mishap?
and
B) That rolling dice is not a 'random' thing

Or that non of this procedure below has an element of randomness?
Placement of marker > Rolling of Dice (3!) > Proximity check > Rolling of Another Die

I put my marker here \/ I roll Dice omg I didn't roll a hit (2/3 chance) and my hit die has a bearing of 275 degrees (one in 360!!!!) and oh my a distance of 11 inches (5.56% [2/36]!!!!) now oh dear there happens to be terrain/units a board edge there...Mishap!!!!!

So there is nothing randon at all going on when that occurence happens?
Does his phrasing matter? He meant that, when you roll the 2D6+scatter, that doesn't make you mishap. It's only when you hit an enemy model/impassable terrain do you mishap.

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I blame not having enough coffee late in the work day when I posted that.

Deep Striking is a confusing set of rules when you look at them and try to break them down. The first step calls for you to place a model anywhere on the table that you would like the unit to arrive. It doesn't specify that the location of the model must adhere to the standard movement rules, in fact the 'anywhere on the table, position you would like the unit to arrive' (RB 95) would seem to give you free reign to place it wherever you want.

To further add to the confusion the rules do not specify when you check for Deep Strike Mishaps. What is the difference between 'models in a deep striking unit being deployed' and placing the first model in the first step? Do you check as soon as you place the first model on the table where you would like it to arrive? Do you check after you roll the scatter? Do you check both times?

If you follow the path for Deep Striking rules it takes you from Deep Strike ---> Reserves ---> Movement Phase. The INAT followed that same path to determine why Deep Strike is movement and is therefore follows the rules for the Movement Phase. IMO they broke down that the actual placement is not movement despite is still happening during the Movement Phase.

One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

**Janthkin**

Brother Ramses wrote:One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Except that, as noted previously, if you follow that interpretation then you cannot scatter across/past an enemy unit, as you will be "moving" through/too near a unit during the "place a model/scatter/deploy the unit" steps.

Do you mishap every time the line of your scatter roll passes within 1" of an enemy unit? If it's all movement, then you should.

**agnosto**

apwill4765 wrote:

My table is composed of 12 movable terrain squares. I guess no deepstriking on my table because the terrain features move.

God these arguments are so asinine.

Yes, they are when you are intentionally being obtuse. To my knowledge there is no in-game effect that moves terrain, are you going to tell me that the mawloc moves buildings, trees and hills as well as tanks and troops? When you are playing a game, you don't move the terrain around thus, for all intents and purposes, terrain is a part of the table.

Lighten up, it's only a game. If you don't agree with my opinion, fine but there is no call to denigrate the thoughts of others simply because you believe they are wrong. It's a big world out there full of diverse people with different ways of thinking. A mature individual respects the opinions of others even when they do not agree.

**Brother Ramses**

Janthkin wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Except that, as noted previously, if you follow that interpretation then you cannot scatter across/past an enemy unit, as you will be "moving" through/too near a unit during the "place a model/scatter/deploy the unit" steps.

Do you mishap every time the line of your scatter roll passes within 1" of an enemy unit? If it's all movement, then you should.

I have the counter for this argument, but it is dependent on the wording the BrB that I do not have at my office right now. Will save for when I get home Janth.

**Tactica**

Saldiven wrote:
Dracos wrote:
The reason I disagree is simple: All models are impassible terrain, and impassible terrain rules specify that models may not be placed in impassible terrain. Using the same word, Deep Strike tells you to place models anywhere on the board. If you place a model in impassible terrain for its initial deepstrike position, then you are breaking the impassible terrain rule <snip>

<snip> ...Firstly, the rules do not prevent "placement" of models on impassable terrain. The rules say you cannot "move" into or through impassable terrain.

The INAT.FAQ council is of the opinion that the initial "placement" of the model from which the scatter role is determined does not constitute "movement." In their interpretation, "movement" does not occur until after the scatter die is rolled and final placement of the deep striking unit is determined. If, after determining final placement, the model/unit is then in impassable terrain, then you follow the rules for that.

Due to your wording, I do not know if this answers your question... but if it helps one way or the other...

From INAT FAQ 3.2, page 18, left column, section: ORGANIZING A BATTLE: DEPLOY FORCES (PAGES 92-93)

RB.92A.02 – Q: When deploying forces, can units be deployed into impassable terrain?
A: A unit may only be deployed into impassable terrain if it has a special rule allowing it to do so (like a Lictor) or it would be allowed to move there during the game (such as a skimmer on top of an impassable building) [clarification].

Cheers,

Tac

**Dracos**

The impassible terrain rules explicitly prohibit placing models in impassible terrain, using the word "place".

Similarly, Deep Strike uses the word "place" to describe how you put the initial model down.

This is the incongruity which was notably absent from Yak's rational, and I was wanting to make sure this fact had been considered when making the judgment. If it was considered, then how has this incongruity been reconciled?

edit: As much as I appreciate everyone's opinion, I am putting my question to Yak, as only he knows to what extend this was considered.

**Steelmage99**

I need a clarification on a facet of the Mawloc issue;

A lot of people state that any unit embarked in a vehicle destroyed by Terror From The Deep, is also destroyed.

Is there a ruling concerning this. I can't seem to find a rule addressing this issue.

Can anybody help me out?

**Brother Ramses**

Steelmage99 wrote:I need a clarification on a facet of the Mawloc issue;

A lot of people state that any unit embarked in a vehicle destroyed by Terror From The Deep, is also destroyed.

Is there a ruling concerning this. I can't seem to find a rule addressing this issue.

Can anybody help me out?

I can see how that would be a possible outcome:

Mawloc destroys the vehicle. You would have to deploy your troops so that they fit within the crater that was once the vehicle. Mawloc's base could be dead center in the middle of said crater. You would not be able to deploy your troops over an inch away from Mawloc's base, they are destroyed.

**Steelmage99**

That is true.

**Marcus Iago Geruasius**

I like this thread but I really hate this game.

The first step to recovery is to admit that you are broken. In this case we need to admit to ourselves that the mawloc breaks the RAW, in many ways. I persoanlly, don't like it, but it is par for the GW course.

Now, how do we fix it? I definitely do not like or agree with Yak and the mighty council of elders' rulings. but as Yak said, these are not rules, but a rubric for judges to use in one particular tournament. A member of my gaming group has suggested that we all sign up to play by the INAT FAQ. To which I answer 'hell no.' However, I tell them that I'll let you interpret your codex however you want and we'll just play a friendly game.

There is a lot of good heated debate and a good amount of fun flaming here, but the reality is that GW broke this beast, so blame them. What you don't realize is that sales of the Mawloc and Trygon are through the roof. Why? because you all bought them in the quest to be the biggest and baddest player out there. You, in fact, played right into the hands of GW marketing. The same marketing that breaks rules, breaks the game, but makes you run out and by three mawlocs.

Every codex starts with the implicit phrase 'Congratulations, you are now owner to the baddest army in the galaxy'

This will not stop until the player base lets GW know that we want it fixed, not with letters and emails, but with dollars. Oh, you'll see an official GW FAQ soon, but it will be after the new model sales level off.

Anyway, back to the fray! I am enjoying it.

**The Dragon**

I say to hell with the Mawloc, when the Necron's get their next codex I demand an uber-squishing from above rule which dealing at least Str.6 ap 2 wounds also. Or maybe it should just do a strn10 power hit to everything underneath it...

maybe they can take an initiative test to see if they can run, lol

Anways you guys know I'm playing I will say this though, if this intentional mishap can happen don't be surprised if people fling DSing units on others hoping to bump them back up into reserves. Sure, 2 out of 3 times it's pants, but if I've learned one thing about 40K it's that there's always some crazy bastard pulling off the improbable.

Can I get a hear hear?

**Arschbombe**

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote: A member of my gaming group has suggested that we all sign up to play by the INAT FAQ. To which I answer 'hell no.' However, I tell them that I'll let you interpret your codex however you want and we'll just play a friendly game.

I'm the opposite. I like the INAT FAQ simply because it represents a neutral arbiter for a lot of questions. To me the worst time to try to argue a rule is in the middle of a game when the outcome can hinge on the result of the argument and the players have a vested interest in winning the argument. Agree beforehand to use INAT and it just saves a headache and lets the game go on. The individual rulings are less important than what the whole represents.

What you don't realize is that sales of the Mawloc and Trygon are through the roof.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you are just pulling random "facts" out of your ass?

Why? because you all bought them in the quest to be the biggest and baddest player out there.

And again. Man, you're good.

**don_mondo**

Yeah, we use the INAT in our group, course, we attend lots of tourneys where it's used (two teams to Adepticon, etc) as well, so it helps to be familiar with it.

That said, I don't agree with every call they make. Heck, don't agree with this one. Yes, GW did say that Spores can land on units. But that's the ONLY unit that GW has said that about.............. Given that as the only GW exception thus far, I would say that they are the only exception to the rule and nothing else can land (be placed for deep strike) on top of an enemy unit until/unless GW says it can. Maybe I'm wrong, dunno, we'll see if GW ever bothers to answer this in their FAQ.

**herosson**

Hear hear, go out and roll those dice.

I find that the rules for this are not broken in any way or that the wording is all that cryptic.

The real problem here (my opinion only) is that the wrong rule is being modified. The Mawloc comes with the USR Deep Strike, then it gives the special rule "Terror from the Deep" which instructs the player in what to do if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model.

It seems to me that some would modify the rules for Deep Strike based on the special rule Terror from the deep, which in no way tells the player how to modify the Deep Strike USR play mechanic. If the intention (once again my opinion) was to modify the Deep Strike USR I would think they would say something about it in the rules for Terror from the Deep.

Just an observation, and it's all really relative.

**Brother Ramses**

herosson wrote:Hear hear, go out and roll those dice.

I find that the rules for this are not broken in any way or that the wording is all that cryptic.

The real problem here (my opinion only) is that the wrong rule is being modified. The Mawloc comes with the USR Deep Strike, then it gives the special rule "Terror from the Deep" which instructs the player in what to do if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model.

It seems to me that some would modify the rules for Deep Strike based on the special rule Terror from the deep, which in no way tells the player how to modify the Deep Strike USR play mechanic. If the intention (once again my opinion) was to modify the Deep Strike USR I would think they would say something about it in the rules for Terror from the Deep.

Just an observation, and it's all really relitive.

Nice point to make.

The jist of it all is that a segment of the playerbase saw what Terror of the Deep did and then tried to find a way in the rules to increase the chance of it happening. Sort of a reverse engineering to justify increased chances of Terror of the Deep occurring. I think that is the biggest problem I have with this whole argument is the willingness to scrutinize the rules to skew the odds in their favor of rolling a mishap to trigger Terror of the Deep. I won't say it is outright cheating, but it sure reeks of it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:One thing to note is that the rules for placing models on or within 1" of a model do not specify a specific point during the phase but encompass the entire Movement Phase. So throught the entire phase known as the Movement Phase per the BrB, you are not allowed to place a model on top of another or within 1". The insertion of a break of "non-movement" in the Movement Phase that the INAT has created is their own ruling without backup by RAW.

Except that, as noted previously, if you follow that interpretation then you cannot scatter across/past an enemy unit, as you will be "moving" through/too near a unit during the "place a model/scatter/deploy the unit" steps.

Do you mishap every time the line of your scatter roll passes within 1" of an enemy unit? If it's all movement, then you should.

Good point Janth.

While the scatter does deploy through or near an enemy model, the Deep Strike rules do not consider them a candidate for Mishap until they are deployed. Now of course this sounds as if you can then do as some want to with the Mawloc during Deep Strike since he is not yet "deployed" so can be placed on or within 1" of a enemy model. However the rule in the placing of models still stands because despite the Mawloc "not really being there just yet" the full intention by the player is to fully break the movement rules for placing models to solely increase the chance to trigger Terror of the Deep.

Despite the method to get there, the end result is that the rules for placing models in the movement phase is broken. The thing that kinda ticks me off is that a segment of the player base is not relying on the normal method of scatter to determine a mishap, but an increased chance to get a mishap.

**Arschbombe**

Brother Ramses wrote:I won't say it is outright cheating, but it sure reeks of it.

Cheating? Really? The drama over this issue would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.

**Brother Ramses**

Arschbombe wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:I won't say it is outright cheating, but it sure reeks of it.

Cheating? Really? The drama over this issue would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad.

I would say that if you are reading and interpreting the rules to INCREASE the chance of a positive result for your army then yes, I would consider that cheating. Especially when there is RAW evidence and precedent that your interpretation is wrong.

**Gwar!**

Brother Ramses wrote:I would say that if you are reading and interpreting the rules to INCREASE the chance of a positive result for your army then yes, I would consider that cheating. Especially when there is RAW evidence and precedent that your interpretation is wrong.

Errm... you do realise Precedence actually supports the "may deep strike on top of an enemy unit" as Monoliths and Spore Mines (4th ed) have been doing this for many, many years?

**Brother Ramses**

I can't find my old Nid codex around the house right now, but looking at my Necron codex, the Monolith does not make any changes to the deep striking rules that allows it to deep strike onto enemy units, but only changes what happens if it arrives within 1" of an enemy.

It is just a different version of the Mawloc's Terror of the Deep when a mishap occurs.

And by precedence, I am talking about rolling for and getting a mishap via the scatter dice, not via placement of the model before rolling for scatter.

**yakface**

Dracos wrote:The impassible terrain rules explicitly prohibit placing models in impassible terrain, using the word "place".

Similarly, Deep Strike uses the word "place" to describe how you put the initial model down.

This is the incongruity which was notably absent from Yak's rational, and I was wanting to make sure this fact had been considered when making the judgment. If it was considered, then how has this incongruity been reconciled?

edit: As much as I appreciate everyone's opinion, I am putting my question to Yak, as only he knows to what extend this was considered.

The point I was trying to make above (and perhaps I didn't do as good a job as I hoped!) was that we consider the initial 'placement' of the Deep Striking model to be representational. It is a marker used to help figure out where the unit will actually end up Deep Striking. So until the final position of the Deep Striking model is determined, that model isn't bound by ANY rules besides having to be placed anywhere on the table (which we take to mean anywhere within the accepted gaming area).

This is why when the initial model scatters, this 'movement' isn't blocked by impassable terrain, enemy models, etc...the full scatter distance is always observed.

Once the final position is determined, then the Deep Striking models are placed, counting as moving to THAT finalized point. And if that point turns out to be in an unacceptable position (within 1" of an enemy model, in impassable terrain, off the table, etc) then the unit follows the rules for a Deep Strike Mishap.

I personally feel really, really strongly that we ruled this one 'right' in that if GW ever rules on this matter (although I think they may not bother figuring that casual players who read the Mawloc rules will find it abundantly clear that they are allowed to intentionally Deep Strike onto enemy models, as that's the whole point of the model!) I'm confident they will rule exactly the same way.

Of course, I could end up putting a giant foot into my mouth if I turn out to be wrong, but as of right now, this is a ruling that I stand by with confidence.

**don_mondo**

Oh, you made your point just fine. I just happen to disagree with it. Only one unit has been FAQed by GW as having a legal initial deep strike placement on top of another unit, friend or foe. That, to me, means that is the only unit that is allowed to do so, or they would have mentioned it for the others.

**PistolWraithCaine**

How hard is this? Everyone here who doesn't think that the Mawloc can do this is getting caught up in the model that GW wants you to use as a marker. Yakface is right, no rules govern it as it isn't even in play at this moment, the unit doesn't enter play until after the scatter.

If the model was in play and therefore governed by movement rules would you make the squad take a mishap roll if say the scatter line goes through an enemy unit (but you didn't target any place that is within 1" of an enemy model) and you end up not within 1". Do any of you actually play like that?

**don_mondo**

How hard is this? Everyone here who does think that the Mawloc can do this ......................................

By what you're saying, every deep striking unit can start it's DS placement over an enemy unit. Yet it took an FAQ just for spore mines to be able to do so. Why? Because you cannot start your deep strike placement over an enemy unit.

So me one actual piece of documentation, not speculation by players, from GW saying explicitly that the Mawloc can start it's deep strike positioning on top of any enemy unit. Doesn't exist, does it? It required an FAQ for Spore Mines (altho I thought that one was a gimme) and to me, it will take a GW FAQ for me to cease to argue against the Mawloc being able to start it's deep strike on an enemy unit.

**ChrisCP**

Well then...
I think for once people should take a deep breath, forget about the rules, and really think what this "Mawloc" thingy is for.

It's not for popping up just in front of a unit is it?
It's for opening a hole under some tasty canned foor and omn omn omn-ing isn't it?

In which case 'trying to miss on purpose' seems pretty silly.

Maybe GW gives some players too much credit =P

It's like people saying well it doesn't say it doesn't work while it's off the board - so it must. While not noticing all the pervious examples where it's stated it work anytime or can be used from reserves etc etc etc.