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.

don_mondo wrote: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.

To be fair, just because a question and answer is included in a FAQ doesn't mean it is a rules change, it can just mean the question is frequently asked.

And the reason for that question again goes back to the core question of what it means to be able to place the initial marker 'anywhere on the table'.

If you take that to mean 'on the tabletop' (of course, assuming that terrain counts as part of the tabletop), then you believe that the initial placement can't be over an enemy model. If you take that to mean 'anywhere in the playing area', then you believe that in general it is fine to pick any spot to initiate the Deep Strike process, even if it begins over an enemy model.

So I obviously don't think there is one completely clear answer...but I do think that based on the entirety of the rules/fluff written for the Mawloc that GW sure believes they are able to Deep Strike anywhere they want (even directly into enemy models), although it wouldn't surprise me in the least for GW not to understand why people are even debating this either.

Well, if that is indeed what they mean, then they need to say that..............

Until they do (or say it cannot), well, we'll keep going round and round on a merry-go-round.

So your opinion is that we shouldn't use something in it's intended purpose/role/way because GW doesn't treat everyone as if they need warning lables on knives?

No, my opinion is that we don't know that it is "intended" to work that way, and based on their previous rulings, only one thing works that way (spore mines). Your opinion is otherwise. And for both of us, that's all it is, an opinion. We don't have a firm GW rule one way or the other. So I disagree with the INAT ruling, because in my opinion, nothing except those units that GW has stated as able to start their deep strike position on top of an enemy unit can do so. And they have not stated so for the Mawloc. And until they do so, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
Isn't one of the basic items for figuring out what you can or cannot do something like, "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot"? So tell me, where does it say the Mawloc can............ Simple, it doesn't. Which would be a 'cannot', right? It tells us what happens if the Mawloc scatters onto an enemy unit. From this, people are inferring that it can start on top of an enemy unit to increase it's chance of landing on an enemy unit.

But bottom line, I'll be playing that it can, until GW says otherwise and/or the INAT says otherwise, because altho I disagree, I do use the INAT. But I still reserve my right to state my disagreement.

don_mondo wrote:
But bottom line, I'll be playing that it can, until GW says otherwise and/or the INAT says otherwise, because altho I disagree, I do use the INAT. But I still reserve my right to state my disagreement.

And I wouldn't want it any other way!

Hehehehehe, you know me, never been very bashful, have I?

Well said
Now, a little bit of mathhammer.
Assuming 'best for mishap' unit distibution,
Assuming a Mawlocs base to be 7.5cm-ish,
Now let a squad of say 5 terminators be standing around they'd easily occupy a space of 17cm across the board and 8cm deep - Giving a mishap range of ~20cm, by ~10cm.

Now 1/3rd of the time the 'Loc is going to hit, and not go anywhere (no mishap)

The remaining 2/3rds of the time scatter comes into play.

The Terminators with the mawloc as close as possible have an 'arc' of about 120-135 where it would head towards them.

With the assumption in consideration any #on the scatter distance would cause the mishap.

So (2/3)*(135/360) Gives us a ~25% chance for what the 'Loc player would want - not that bad actually.


Hmm, think We'll spend some of our gaming time tonight doing a couple more examples by hand/proper measument.

don_mondo

You claim we can't know intention doe sthat mean you advocating entirely playing by RAW?

In which case terror from the deep is useless anyway because there is no such thing as a large blast template.

I preseume you ebeilve that the Doom doesn't get a 3++ as it's not a zoanthrope.

Or if you roll equal in the deployment first turn roll off twice that the game just stops as you can't re-roll ANYTHING a 2nd time?

That ramming is impossible becauise Tank shocking stops you from coming with 1" of another vehicle but the ramming rules do not override this (they just state what happens should you contact another vehicle which of course you never will).

That Yriels spear does nothing (it follwos the singing spear rules on pg 18 of the codex of which of course there are none, as they are on page 27).

That every weapon destroyed result on the Monolith increases it's shoots by 1?

Sometimes intention is abundantly clear. GWs here are obvious and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother FAQing this as it is so obvious. Given that the INAT FAQ panel has deliberately ignored RAW and RAI to knobble the entire Tyranid codex by screwing the DS army selection (the only real army wide tactical addition in this codex) and even they (who clearly think 'Nids are OP and have hence nuetured the entire army) have ruled this way should probably tell you something...

Don't misquote me. I said that we don't know that this is intended to work that way. Never said anything about any other issue. Sometines intent is clear. On this one, I don't think it is. You may think otherwise. See my earlier posts above regarding opinions................

Enjoy. Time for me to go home and get some sleep.

PistolWraithCaine wrote:How hard is this?

Appearently it's a pretty significant issue. Across every major forum I have visited, this same issue has arose, heavily debated and the verdict is still out. The difference here is how you wish to perceive the DEEP STRIKE rules were intended. Across these many forums, the majority seems to believe that the Mawloc uses the normal Deep Strike rules and has a speciall burrowing and mishap result. I would dare say this is undisputed by the reasonable consensus.

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.

That is incorrect.

There are several considerations to take into account from a rules interpretation perspective.

There are those of us that believe Deep Strike happens in the Movement Phase and as a result is movement. There are those of us that believe placing a marker with one of your models in your unit is the intended point where you wish to move. There are those of us that believe you cannot intentionally move within 1" of the enemy unless you are assaulting or have a special rule.

There are also those of us who believe the counsel failed to rule conservatively or as close to RAW. There are those of us that believe its better to interpret cautiously rather than in favor of a rule which has clear rammifications.

There are those of us that believe Mishaps were meant for accidents. If GW wanted you to Deep Strike blatantly on top of enemy models, they would have said as much. Instead, GW said the model Deep Strikes as normal, but should something go wrong i.e. Mishap, it has special rules.

Yakface is right,

That is your opinion.

For some of us, we believe the INAT FAQ interpretation has it wrong on this issue. We are simply voicing that opposition and opinion for their consideration. I am confident that we have made the point. Furthermore, I believe the case raised has merit.

There are many of us, myself included, that are as strong in our conviction and opinion on this issue as Yakface is of his. I think that is an important fact.

Furthermore, I do not desparage him. I do not demonize him. I do not insult him or otherwise accuse foul play. I do not minimize his opinion or try to pass off that yours or others are simply wrong or ignorant of the obvious.

To the contrary in fact. I value Yakface's opinion and the INAT FAQ counsel's interpretations. I think I have made that clear. I feel confident that many players refer and utilize the INAT FAQ outside of AdeptiCon as a reference tool. Thus, our passion for the hobby and trust we put into the document for just and fair interpretations has brought this issue to their attention. Our goal to effectively communicate a real disagreement with their interpretation is not fueled by malice or ill will, but by a genuine concern that wish proper attention be given to.

no rules govern it as it isn't even in play at this moment, the unit doesn't enter play until after the scatter.

I disagree with your statement. There are rules that definitely do govern it.

- Do Deployment rules govern models that are not in play yet?
- Do Reserves rules govern models that are not in play yet?
- Do Deep Strike rules govern how a model enters play?

- Perhaps the question you are trying to raise is, If Deep Strike occurs in the Movement Phase, but the model has not arrived yet - do movement rules govern it? This is one of the debated points however. Since their are only three phases of the game (move, shoot assault), the turn must start with Movement Phase. Since the Movement Phase does have rules that govern all models that are MOVING or WISH TO MOVE and since you can ONLY move within 1" of the enemy during assault, there are those of us that state yes, concepts like Impassible Terrain, moving within 1" of the enemy, etc all effect Deep Strike movement actions.

Point being, this is hardly a 'simple' topic to many of us.

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?

This is a hypothetical *IF* the rules were different and *IF* something happened *what* would you do is.... off topic and unnecessary to debate the current topic in my opinion.

Cheers,

Tac

Arschbombe wrote:

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:

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.

I am better then good, I am informed. Facts, whether random or not, are facts.
Unfortunately, you sink to attacking me, rather then the arguments at hand. I understand though, this is after all, dakkadakka




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactica: An absolutely brilliant post that is indeed the matter at hand. You covered my sentiments completely.

all:
This is a big deal, whether you play in tournaments or at your friends house. Is this a game of rules or a game of interpretations. If it is the latter, who is the authority on interpreting?

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:I am better then good, I am informed. Facts, whether random or not, are facts.

You presented no facts. You made assertions.

There are several considerations to take into account from a rules interpretation perspective.

There are those of us that believe Deep Strike happens in the Movement Phase and as a result is movement. There are those of us that believe placing a marker with one of your models in your unit is the intended point where you wish to move. There are those of us that believe you cannot intentionally move within 1" of the enemy unless you are assaulting or have a special rule.

There are also those of us who believe the counsel failed to rule conservatively or as close to RAW. There are those of us that believe its better to interpret cautiously rather than in favor of a rule which has clear rammifications.

There are those of us that believe Mishaps were meant for accidents. If GW wanted you to Deep Strike blatantly on top of enemy models, they would have said as much. Instead, GW said the model Deep Strikes as normal, but should something go wrong i.e. Mishap, it has special rules.

Saved me 5 minutes of typing, thanks.

Howdy all, figured i'd chime in.

This issue needs to be calmed down, based on how hot the debate is. I hope I can offer some insight that helps people see things in the adepticon faq's point of view.

Also consider the Mawloc is so terribad even if you let it get everything its way! 5th ed was not kind to nids, and the 5th ed nid book is not a strong competitive army outside of 1k point games. Its sad there is such negative feelings towards nids. But that is just my opinion, dont dwell on it if you disagree. If GW rules that the mawloc, like the spore mine, can deepstrike on top of enemy units, please dont /quit 40k. The Mawloc the nid version of a medusa gun, but it only fires every other turn and costs more points. Its bad! Again my opinion but most people will agree the Mawloc is no lash of submission!

As an aside before my main point, spore mines were allowed to deepstrike on top of enemy models --to avoid mishapping and going back in reserve/being destroyed/general mishap sillyness that applies when a model deepstrikes within 1 inch of the enemy. It was not to allow a spore model to initially be placed on another model for deepstrike resolution--it was assumed that could be done. But whatever, again thats just my opinion, lets not focus on the old.

When you deepstrike and place the initial model, and roll a hit, people are saying that you can not mishap on a hit, as mishaps are reserved for when things go wrong. Forget about the mawloc for a minute, as the mawloc is not the focus of this argument any more, as the issue is entirely one with deepstriking 'physical world' initial model placement counting as 'game world' model placement.

So, you place your initial model of, lets say, terminators. You play that the initial model (a placeholder, but whatever) can not be placed on impassable terrain (even though its not actually placed yet, but whatever). You roll a hit 1 inch away from an enemy unit. You then start placing termies in a ring. And wow, your ring runs into an enemy unit. Well, you must place your ring(s) around the initial model, which lands a model in impassible terrain. Congrats! You just mishaped on a hit even though your initial (placeholder) model was 1 inch away, by placing a ringed termie model in impassible terrain (another model) and you did it without the initial model being placed in impassable terrain.

So mishaping despite getting a deepstrike hit is not a new thing, no matter how you play in regards to the initial model deepstrike issue.

Now, all that aside. Lets say you are moving an infantry squad. You cant move within 1 inch of the enemy in the movement phase, we know. So, you place a die where the model starts, pick up the model, and begin checking where the model in your hand can go. Does the model in your hand, a 'placeholder' until it is finished moving, cause you to lose the game if your hand passes within 1 inch of the enemy? Technically, you just moved a model within an inch, despite not actually having the model move there. In real life, the physical model was within 1 inch. In the game, the model stayed outside 1 inch the entire time.

There is a barrier between the physical real world, and the game world. Coming back to the mawloc, it is NOT POSSIBLE via the game world to resolve the mawlocs movement (its deepstrike) within 1 inch of an enemy model. This is true if your initial 'physical real world in hand' model is over an enemy model or not, because by the end of the mawloc's movement with terror from the deep it will have moved all impassable models from around it. When you resolve the mawloc's deepstrike move with 'game world' movement, there will NEVER be enemy models within 1 inch regardless of the initial model seeming, in the 'real model in hand world', to be within 1 inch. This is just another abstract between the physical real world and the 'game' world.

Thanks for sticking with the mountain of text!

First off, no matter how craptastic you or any of your camp thinks the Mawloc happens to be in terms of points cost, stat-line, or model cost does not have any standing in justifying an illegal move.

That is like me saying the new Blood Claws suck now and are less better then Grey Hunters, so I should get to assault with my Blood Claws after Deep Striking because if I am within 6", and not being led by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, I need to assault per the Headstrong rule.

The crap doesn't grow wings and fly just because you don't like the smell.

Now for the rest of your drivel, no matter how much again, your camp, wants to differentiate between what is exactly the model, what exactly is placement, and what exactly is movement, YOUR INTENTION TO PLACE A MODEL IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE ON OR WITHIN 1" OF AN ENEMY MODEL IS STILL ILLEGAL.

It doesn't matter how you try and justify it or how you can interpret the rules to let you "placehold" on or within 1" of an enemy model, your clear final intention is to end up with the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model.

It doesn't matter the method, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE END RESULT!

/geesh

I can't believe I'm actually going to post in this thread, but here goes...

The whole problem that I have with the "you can't Deep Strike on or within 1" of a model" camps argument is the Mycetic Spore rules.

In the Mycetic Spore rules, (paraphrasing) it states that if you scatter onto an enemy unit, reduce the scatter by the minimum amount to place it without mishap. So, if you couldn't Deep Strike on top of enemy models, why include the "scatter" caveat? It seems to me the rule would have been written, if you would Deep Strike onto an enemy unit, blah blah blah.

Similarly, if they wanted the Mawloc to function the same way, they would have just copy/pasted the rules (they did for the Trygon). The distinct difference in the language shows that Deep Strking onto enemy units is indeed possible and allowed by the rules.

Brother Ramses wrote:First off, no matter how craptastic you or any of your camp thinks the Mawloc happens to be in terms of points cost, stat-line, or model cost does not have any standing in justifying an illegal move.

That is like me saying the new Blood Claws suck now and are less better then Grey Hunters, so I should get to assault with my Blood Claws after Deep Striking because if I am within 6", and not being led by a Wolf Guard Pack Leader, I need to assault per the Headstrong rule.

The crap doesn't grow wings and fly just because you don't like the smell.

Now for the rest of your drivel, no matter how much again, your camp, wants to differentiate between what is exactly the model, what exactly is placement, and what exactly is movement, YOUR INTENTION TO PLACE A MODEL IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE ON OR WITHIN 1" OF AN ENEMY MODEL IS STILL ILLEGAL.

It doesn't matter how you try and justify it or how you can interpret the rules to let you "placehold" on or within 1" of an enemy model, your clear final intention is to end up with the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model.

It doesn't matter the method, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THE END RESULT!

/geesh

Please, no matter how you feel the rules for a model in a wargame should be played, there is no reason to become rude and start calling someone else's post 'drivel' any more then you'd like them to say the same to you.


And if I can be so bold as to try to clarify a bit of what 'DevianID' was saying in the first part of his post, he wasn't saying that because the Mawloc is under-powered that therefore we ruled the way we did, but rather even if you do end up playing the game the way we've suggested in the INAT it may turn out that the Mawloc isn't quite as horrible a unit as some imagine it to be.


But I digress, I wanted to re-focus on a point I made earlier that hasn't really been addressed sufficiently IMHO.

So for anyone who believes that players are not allowed to place the initial Deep Striking model in a unit over an enemy model, please chime in and respond to my point here if you don't mind.


The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.


1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.


2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.


Now, I've never personally encountered anyone who plays the style I describe as #2. If there are players who play that way, I'm really curious to here about it (perhaps I should start a poll).

But my guess is, while there may be quite a few people who play that you can't place the initial Deep Striking model over an enemy model, you don't follow the second part of what I propose for some reason.

And IMHO, that is the issue I have. If you're going to insist that the initial model placement counts as putting the model on the table in the way that it must follow all the normal rules for movement, then you really should be consistent and stop scatter when it causes the model to move into an illegal position.


So, if you believe that the initial model can't be placed over an enemy model do you play completely the way I describe in #2, and if not, by what justification?

Brother Ramses way to troll, miss the point, and be TFG.

"YOUR INTENTION TO PLACE A MODEL IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE ON OR WITHIN 1" OF AN ENEMY MODEL IS STILL ILLEGAL...your clear final intention is to end up with the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model. "

My point is that there is no way you can INTENTIONALLY resolve a deepstrike from a mawloc on top of an enemy model. It will never, EVER happen, TFtD moves any models away from you. The Mawloc will NEVER EVER be on top of an enemy model when it is placed on the table, regardless of intentions.

What you are arguing is flawed. You are arguing that before the move is made, the Mawloc cant move. Your argument resides on the idea that while the Mawloc is in hand, resolving its move, the model is considered 'live.'

In my book, when someone calls for a strict interpretation of RAW, that is not 100% supported, AND has numerous counter examples against it, to the specific detriment of a player, they are being TFG.

Examples also include telling a 'nid player that the Doom does not get a 3++ invuln as, while described as a zoanthrope, the Doom is not a Zoanthrope. Doing so in an academic debate is one thing, berating another player however is another, all together different matter.

zatchmo wrote:... In the Mycetic Spore rules, (paraphrasing) it states that if you scatter onto an enemy unit, reduce the scatter by the minimum amount to place it without mishap. So, if you couldn't Deep Strike on top of enemy models, why include the "scatter" caveat? It seems to me the rule would have been written, if you would Deep Strike onto an enemy unit, blah blah blah ...

because if they would've just written "if you DS onto an enemy unit" it would bring up a debate whether you suddenly can DS on an enemy unit. by adding "scatter" they made sure that the only way you can end on an enemy model via DS is scattering there. of course that's just a wild guess, like with a lot of other things GW wrote in their rules that need decrypting.

Nitewolf wrote:

zatchmo wrote:... In the Mycetic Spore rules, (paraphrasing) it states that if you scatter onto an enemy unit, reduce the scatter by the minimum amount to place it without mishap. So, if you couldn't Deep Strike on top of enemy models, why include the "scatter" caveat? It seems to me the rule would have been written, if you would Deep Strike onto an enemy unit, blah blah blah ...

because if they would've just written "if you DS onto an enemy unit" it would bring up a debate whether you suddenly can DS on an enemy unit. by adding "scatter" they made sure that the only way you can end on an enemy model via DS is scattering there. of course that's just a wild guess, like with a lot of other things GW wrote in their rules that need decrypting.

But, that's exactly what the mawloc rule says...if you would DS into an enemy model.

Okay just to slake my interest in the topic, I've created a poll to get a gauge on how people play this issue in general...not even going specifically into the whole issue with the Mawloc (as this really is a bigger disagreement that extends to several models including Monoliths, Spore Mines, Mawlocs, Hades Drills, etc):

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278910.page

yakface wrote:
The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.


1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.


2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.

This is the crux of it for me. Either the initial placement of the model is movement, or it isn't. but if it is, then the scatter is clearly moving a model on the table and is subject to those same rules.

I haven't been playing nearly as long as many here, and only play casually with friends, not at tournaments, but it was always my belief from reading the rulebook that the initial model placement for deep strike was just a place-holder, and could be put anywhere, including impassable terrain - it was just that this would usually be a stupid thing to do (but might occasionally be beneficial; if you REALLY don't want that model coming in yet, you might want to risk the mishap so you could hope to get it put back in reserves).

I never saw the rules as preventing this so much as common sense stopping people from doing it, like how you can shoot plasma guns at something clearly out of range just to try to "gets hot" your own guys to death. So at least in my case, and I suspect for some of the others here, we don't think the mawloc is changing deep strike at all, just making a usually bad option into a good one.

Personally, I can see both sides of this argument. Additionally, I can also see how both sides are attempting to read more into the rulebook than is actually present in order to ruleslawyer their interpretation into canon.

We won't know what GW's intention was until they release their own FAQ for the new nid codex, to make any assumptions at the current time is purely conjecture.

For what it's worth, it's my personal opinion that the fluff behind the Mawloc supports the ability to deepstrike on top of enemy units; however, it's also my opinion that deff rollas can be used against vehicles during a ram.

don_mondo wrote:

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

because in my opinion, nothing except those units that GW has stated as able to start their deep strike position on top of an enemy unit can do so. And they have not stated so for the Mawloc.

Hey Don Mondo,

I can't find my copy of the last Nid FAQ, so I apologize if I remember this wrong.

But as I recall, the FAQ did not give permission for the mine to deepstrike onto enemy units. It did, however, answer a question in a way that only made sense/worked, if the mine was able to do so. The answer indicated that it was okay to DS onto an enemy, not give the Mine special dispensation to do so.

Isn't one of the basic items for figuring out what you can or cannot do something like, "if it doesn't say you can, then you cannot"? So tell me, where does it say the Mawloc can............ Simple, it doesn't.

Sure it does. It says place it on the table. It doesn't specifically say it can be placed on enemy models, but it also doesn't say it can be place on a hill, or a forest, etc.

It tells us what happens if the Mawloc scatters onto an enemy unit.

But that is *not* what it says. It never even mentions the term 'scatter' anywhere in the rules. it states "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model...." I realize this causes pages of discussion, but it seems pretty clear from my reading of it.

The fluff also talks of single marines killing hundreds of orks. I use that as an argument to support my "Marines win on a 2+ with ones always re-rolled" rule. I am not sure why, but so far no one in my group will agree with me.. they probably don't read the fluff

Marcus that comment is not logically valid. Marines have no rule whose intention is in question that leads to the idea that marines win on a 2+ with a reroll via corroborating fluff. Your example does not fit the situation, and I daresay you might have missed the point of Waaghmaster posting clearly what he describes as his opinion on how he chooses to interpret the rules, and how his opinion is carried on to other units whose rules have been questionable.

The Mawloc does have rules whose intentions seem suspect as to whether they can or can not deepstrike on top of enemy models, depending on how you play deepstrike as illustrated by Yakface. Fluff supports them deepstriking right on top of others. Legacy 'nid unit rules also support this. Most people also play via Yakface's initial rule interpretation, despite not understanding the consequences of doing so in relation to the Mawloc.

As an aside, Mishaps happen if you CANT deploy ALL the models in a unit without being on top of or too close to an enemy. A mishap prevents the ingame movement of said unit--if a unit is found unable to be placed legally per a deepstrike, it is NOT moved and placed, and instead a mishap is rolled. The deepstrike action itself must, therefore, allow for a unit to be supposed to be on top of another, or we could not mishap in the first place.

Please see my example about a unit deepstriking above. A unit can intentionally place the initial (placeholder) marker legally, 1 inch away from the enemy, roll a hit on the scatter dice, and then automatically mishap while forming rings with the deepstriking unit. This is just more evidence that only after you have resolved the deepstrike scatter do the deepstriking models count as moving and check if they would be placed in impassable terrain. This all supports Yakface's position via the recent poll.

Devian pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as my earlier comments were concerned.
Trying to attribute "intent" to the devs at this point is a crap shoot at best. In relation to the Mawloc, until we get an faq from GW, just discuss with your opponent and decide beforehand. If you can't agree, roll on it and let fate decide. It's a game, it's not the end of the world if it doesn't go in your favor.

I realize that not everyone plays the game for the same reason, and one person's definition of fun won't work for everyone else. Having said that, I enjoy games with an "exciting" scenematic feel, and giant worms (ala Dune) erupting out of the ground and swallowing my boyz whole while other boyz cackle maniacally while crushing 'umies and der wagons beneath their deff rollas fits the bill

Just seems to me that people are getting too caught up in proving they are correct, and are losing sight of the fact that people play this game to have fun, not argue. Like I told one of my co-worker's one time...I could win more arguments with the wife if I really wanted to..but doing so would lead to less play time

Sorry about that Dev, just sick and tired of this one and can't wait for the GW FAQ/Errata no matter which way it goes down.

As I pointed out, no matter how terribad Mawloc may be either using your interpretation or mine, has no bearing on the argument. You are not the first to point out that because it might be such a craptastic model/unit, that it must have this rule your way. GW's point cost/usefullness ratio is unknown to all of us, but whatever it may be or what you and others think it should be, cannot not affect how the rules are read or interpreted.

Now, on to your example:

You can't compare your fictional unit and the Mawloc. If the Mawloc is placed 1" away from a unit and scores a hit, he will never cause a mishap and trigger a Terror of the Deep.

Any player that is going to drop a full 10/15/20man unit within 1" of an enemy unit, knows they are going to mishap (unless a complete moron) due to the having to place his models around his initial model and knowing the size of his unit and base size. Is this fictional player intentionally trying to mishap for some insane reason? Yes, but NOT by initially placing the model on or within 1" of an enemy unit AND he is leaving the chance of a mishap up to the roll of the established game mechanic of the scatter dice.

You mentioned that some people say that a mishap is a sense of something going wrong and then point out an example of how a hit can result in a mishap. I agree with the concept that a mishap is result of something going wrong, however in your example it isn't the hit roll that results in a mishap, it is the players initial placement that resulted in a mishap. There is no difference between player inexperience/stupidity and fluff (as determined by scatter roll) mishaps.

The large blast template used to represent Mawloc and his Terror from the Deep attack do not move models out of the way, it attacks them with a str6 ap2 attack. Are you contending that the attack is not in fact Mawloc and therefore two separate entities following different rules for placement? I didn't quite understand that statement.

Now just something else I kinda have thought, but not too deep. If, as some of you contend, Mawloc by design is intended to be a Terror of the Deep one trick pony, why does the rule even bring into account mishaps?

Why say, "If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model..."? If indeed a one trick pony, the rule would just say, "When a Mawloc Deep Strikes....", right?

I haven't crunched the mathammer, but would not this signify that the existing game mechanics of the scatter dice is sufficient to determine Terror of the Deep results versus the increased odds of directly placing the Mawloc on or within 1" of an enemy model?

Don't justify the increased odds of a Terror of the Deep trigger based on fluff or what your perceived points/stats value of the Mawloc.

Apology accepted Ramses

Brother Ramses wrote:The large blast template used to represent Mawloc and his Terror from the Deep attack do not move models out of the way

From TftD pg 51 I quote: "Place the large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from... if any unit still has surviving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template... replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."

From the quoted rules, we see that the template does in fact move models out of the way, and then the Mawloc is placed after there is no models under the template.

Might I also point out, if during a deep strike the actual model needs to be physically placed before resolving the deepstrike, then the Mawloc will hit itself with its large blast template, as it will be placed on the board. Instead the TftD rules specifically tell us that we only put the Mawloc down on the table after resolving the Terror from the Deep.

As an aside, did anyone point out that by RAW, regardless of how you play deepstrike, the Mawloc is forced to be within 1 inch of the enemy with terror from the deep? This is because the 100x120 mm base that the Mawloc is supplied with only leaves 3.5 mm on either long end from the base to the edge of the 127 mm large blast template. Models being pushed from under the large template are only moved the minimum to no longer be under the large blast template, aka they will be in base contact with it, and 3.5 mm away from the Mawloc when the large blast template is replaced with the Mawloc. If this was already mentioned in the thread, please ignore.

yakface wrote:
So for anyone who believes that players are not allowed to place the initial Deep Striking model in a unit over an enemy model, please chime in and respond to my point here if you don't mind.


The issue I'm having, is that in my mind you can only treat that initial Deep Striking model placement one of two ways.


1) You can treat it is a placeholder/marker/etc, that doesn't count as actually putting a model on the table until the scatter roll is completed. Under this premise, it is entirely fine for the model to scatter over an enemy unit or into impassable terrain and therefore immediately trigger a Deep Strike mishap. Because since the model doesn't count as being a 'model' on the table, the scatter distance is always fully measured.


2) You can treat the initial model as an actual 'model' being placed (moved) onto the table. In which case you obviously aren't allowed to put it on top of another model, into impassable terrain or even within 1" of an enemy model. HOWEVER, if this *is* a 'model' on the table then the Deep Strike Scatter (called a 'move' in the Deep Striking rules) would not allow this initial model to 'move' into impassable terrain, off the table or within 1" of enemy models, as this move would have to stop when the model reaches a point it isn't allowed to move.


Now, I've never personally encountered anyone who plays the style I describe as #2. If there are players who play that way, I'm really curious to here about it (perhaps I should start a poll).

But my guess is, while there may be quite a few people who play that you can't place the initial Deep Striking model over an enemy model, you don't follow the second part of what I propose for some reason.

And IMHO, that is the issue I have. If you're going to insist that the initial model placement counts as putting the model on the table in the way that it must follow all the normal rules for movement, then you really should be consistent and stop scatter when it causes the model to move into an illegal position.


So, if you believe that the initial model can't be placed over an enemy model do you play completely the way I describe in #2, and if not, by what justification?

So I created a poll thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278910.page), and lo and behold my prediction seems to be holding true!


I am still waiting for those of you who voted 'B' in the poll thread to tell me how you reconcile the large inconsistency I perceive with your interpretation of the rule.

I am absolutely onboard if you want to say that option 'C' in the poll thread is the RAW...in fact, I think it is! But I don't understand how you can claim that the model actually has to count as being placed on the table and then when it comes to scatter (which is called movement) you are fine with this movement taking the model into places that models can't normally move.

How can you have your cake and eat it too? I just don't understand the rationale here so I'm looking for some of you to give me your perspective on this.