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.

Redbeard wrote:I see nothing in the Necron rules, the Deep Strike rules, the Necron FAQ or the overall FAQ that allows any Necron unit (even the monolith) to ignore being placed on the table. Really Gwar, for such a RAW advocate, I don't know how you keep missing this.

Because it doesn't need to, by RaW, because any model can do it anyway.

I voted option A because that is the way I have always played and the way the people I play with play. However, I really think option B sounds like the most correct option. I just don't think this is an issue I'd want to push before a game when the people I play with all play option A style.

From a fluff perspective no one wound target a teleport knowing would kill the teleporting unit.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a fluff perspective no one wound target a teleport knowing would kill the teleporting unit.

G

and from a fluff perspective the mawloc should only be able to deepstrike on top of enemy models, because it uses a tremor sense to figure out where to go.

Green Blow Fly wrote:From a fluff perspective no one wound target a teleport knowing would kill the teleporting unit.

G

But that's not really the point, is it?

The argument is about units like Mawlocs and Monoliths being able to Deep Strike anywhere they want because they have special rules that push stuff out of the way and in the case of the Mawloc can kill them.

I voted A, because the RAW says "anywhere on the table." If you do this with a unit that doesn't have special rules and mishap, you are an idiot. If you do it with a Mawloc or a Monolith you are playing the game as intended. You're not placing the model on the table at first, because if you were would that mean that the deep striking unit hits the table and then slides over to where the dice say it scattered?

I don't have a problem with the Monolith or Mawloc, choice A makes sense and codex > BRB. However the poll only describes deep striking units in general which includes terminators and daemons. The poll would have been better served if it made note of these differences in my opinion.

G

What I find interesting, is that A and C are two interpretations of the rule, and they are both internally consistant.

B, by its very nature, is *not* consistent.

If treats the placement of the first model as movement, but treats the rest of the DS process as not movement.
How can you say that you can't place the model, but you can 'jump' over other units when you scatter?

Alot people are voting for option (B) but hte people voting for option (A) are a lot more vocal.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Alot people are voting for option (B) but hte people voting for option (A) are a lot more vocal.

G

I wonder why that is?

To me, B really doesn't make sense at all. How that could be interpreted from the Deep Strike rules is frankly beyond me.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't have a problem with the Monolith or Mawloc, choice A makes sense and codex > BRB. However the poll only describes deep striking units in general which includes terminators and daemons. The poll would have been better served if it made note of these differences in my opinion.

G

I'm not sure on the Monolith (since I am unfamiliar with it's codex/faq) but the Mawloc uses the standard deep striking rules with a special rule for what happens when it mishaps. That's why this poll is about deep striking in general and not about the Mawloc in particular. If A then any unit could deep strike on top of a squad if they chose to, but most units would not want to because it is harmful to them. But suppose you were someone with 'cursed dice' that always seemed to roll scatter + large distance, armed with your gut feeling you could elect to deep strike on top of an enemy squad and rest confident that the dice gods will give you a 'crappy' result that would end up putting you near the squad no matter which direction you scatter.

Ive never met anyone like that... Ever.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Ive never met anyone like that... Ever.

G

I've played a game where my DE opponent crashed 6/8 of his jetbikes into trees in a single turn. He missed my Doom of Malan'tai with most of his lance shots and I made every single saving throw. The dice gods were against him.

I think it's a valid decision especially if you don't have the drop pod's rule that reduces scatter to avoid a mishap, do you aim for the spot where you want to appear and hope that you don't scatter, or do you aim for a spot that you don't want to appear and hope that you do scatter?

If you can mishap then there is an art to DS. my daemons always seem to scatter at least 10" but my placements always seem to bring them in safely... Just ask Lorek! If you can mishap only a fool would place the marker on top of another unit.

I can see someone trying to keep a unit in reserve though and hope they roll for Delayed.

G

RAW doesn't say anything against option A.
It works.
I would never place my initial model over impassible terrain/ other models, but i could if i wanted to.

The rule say it has to be placed on the table...

Unit & impassable terrain =\= table

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rule say it has to be placed on the table...

Unit & impassable terrain =\= table

G

Wait, impassable terrain isn't on the table? Units aren't on the table? Say what?

A.

'b' reads "'a' is too scary" or "'a' until the rules I like matter"; if the model cannot be placed anywhere because of arbitrary restrictions that are specificly written to allow exceptions, then those restrictions should _also_ stop its scatter from causing issues.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rule say it has to be placed on the table...

Unit & impassable terrain =\= table

G

Wait, impassable terrain isn't on the table? Units aren't on the table? Say what?

+1

RAW says anywhere on the table. Everything else is RAYHAW.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rule say it has to be placed on the table...

Unit & impassable terrain =\= table

G

And there is no rule to back that up.

Unless your table consists entirely of a solid piece of foam with all the features carved into it, everything else is just something on the table. The rules don't defined what "the table" is or all of what it contains, so we have to ask ourselves these types of questions.

Exactly.

G

RobPro wrote:Unless your table consists entirely of a solid piece of foam with all the features carved into it, everything else is just something on the table. The rules don't defined what "the table" is or all of what it contains, so we have to ask ourselves these types of questions.

Totally ridiculous.

You could never place a skimmer on top of impassable terrain because doing so would place it 'off the table' since it's not 'on the table'.

Or a hill, or a forest, or anything else that is not in direct contact with the table surface.

RobPro wrote:Unless your table consists entirely of a solid piece of foam with all the features carved into it, everything else is just something on the table. The rules don't defined what "the table" is or all of what it contains, so we have to ask ourselves these types of questions.

But that's a bit beside the point, isn't it? The Deep Strike rules say "anywhere" on the table. The other models on the table are irrelevant to this.

As a point of interest, the rules also say "Where you would like the unit to arrive." You're not placing the model/unit until after scatter has been resolved.

So basically . . . Pick A if you really want to risk suiciding your unit (as nowhere in the rules does it say you can't, unless your placing it on top of another model) . . . But otherwise just follow B, as this make a whole lot more sense. =D

Oshova

Monster Rain wrote:

RobPro wrote:Unless your table consists entirely of a solid piece of foam with all the features carved into it, everything else is just something on the table. The rules don't defined what "the table" is or all of what it contains, so we have to ask ourselves these types of questions.

But that's a bit beside the point, isn't it? The Deep Strike rules say "anywhere" on the table. The other models on the table are irrelevant to this.

As a point of interest, the rules also say "Where you would like the unit to arrive." You're not placing the model/unit until after scatter has been resolved.

That is what I am saying. It's ridiculous to say those things count when placing the deep striking unit unless you play on that kind of table.

Oshova wrote:So basically . . . Pick A if you really want to risk suiciding your unit (as nowhere in the rules does it say you can't, unless your placing it on top of another model) . . . But otherwise just follow B, as this make a whole lot more sense. =D

Oshova

More like:

Pick A to allow certain units be be used as they were intended. The argument for A isn't based on "nothing says you can't" but actually on what the rules explicitly say that you can do.

In practice, B is the way you would play for anything other than a Mawloc or a Monolith, but that's based more on not wanting to kill your units with suicidal deep strike placement.

RobPro wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

RobPro wrote:Unless your table consists entirely of a solid piece of foam with all the features carved into it, everything else is just something on the table. The rules don't defined what "the table" is or all of what it contains, so we have to ask ourselves these types of questions.

But that's a bit beside the point, isn't it? The Deep Strike rules say "anywhere" on the table. The other models on the table are irrelevant to this.

As a point of interest, the rules also say "Where you would like the unit to arrive." You're not placing the model/unit until after scatter has been resolved.

That is what I am saying. It's ridiculous to say those things count when placing the deep striking unit unless you play on that kind of table.

Very well then!

Yeah there's no point using a Mawloc if you CAN'T deepstrike into a unit. That would just miss out on it's greatest special rule . . . wiping out that unit lol

Oshova

I dont feel that the model counting as being on the table from the start of deep strike counts as movement. This is the fulcrum of the argument against placing the mawloc on top of enemy units. But if it counts as moving from the start of deep strike, not just after rolling for scatter then doesnt it just place the marker if starting position is on top of an enemy unit. And we all know there are no restrictions on markers being placed on top of units.

I voted for B since it's the most RAW.

G

Yeah but if you follow B then how can a Mawloc aim to use it's special ability? You would have to hope that it would happen to land in a unit. You couldn't aim it to do so.

Oshova