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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Elric - as above. When other models have "Deadshot", they would get that rule. Until then....

Bad example is bad.

Storm - allowance to move other models is explicitly a part of the TftD rules. Now, have you worked out at which point DS is a move yet?

Nos were talking about DS. Have you worked out how you have permission to move my models? I've always said DS counts as having moved, based on your account you disagree I understand and see your point, but Mawlocs rules don't blanket moving my models. I see permission for one special rule to move models out of the way, I see no permission for other DS models.

Based on the poll you're losing this debate.

You do not have permission to place your model on top of mine. You do not have permission to move my models.

And again FAQs are not blanket rules and often go against one another, we even have a FAQ that takes fluff into account, should we change the forum rules to include fluff...?

Well the DS rules say to place the model anywhere on the table without any other restrictions.

Therefore either we smash models, or compromise and point to a location where the model is centered.

DS counts as having moved but only after the DS takes place.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The FaQ clarifies that we have the Mawloc has permission

Fixed that for ya

No you did not fix it as it was fine as it was. (Or maybe it should have read: The FaQ clarifies that all models have permission).

The Mawloc has permission, but so does everyone else, as there is not any explicit permission for the Mawloc specifically. It is a general rule of DS to place the model anywhere on the table, and the Mawloc FaQ clarifies that space can be occupied by an enemy model, as there is no specific language about an allowance to place the Mawloc where other models are, it must be a function of the DS rules themselves.

Where in the FAQ is permission given to all models? Can you set your model down on top of other models? The first step of the deep strike rules state that the model(or one model in a unit) must be placed on the table. The Mawloc gets around this because instead of placing it on the table, you use the large blast marker before determining scatter.

 augustus5 wrote:

Where in the FAQ is permission given to all models? Can you set your model down on top of other models? The first step of the deep strike rules state that the model(or one model in a unit) must be placed on the table. The Mawloc gets around this because instead of placing it on the table, you use the large blast marker before determining scatter.

Absolutely false. You do not place the marker until after you scatter. Re-read the rules please.

More specifically the mawlocs rules by pass the standard placement by replacing the mawloc with a blast marker if it is to be placed on enemy models in either case of scatter or by choice as clarified by the faq. As only the mawloc and its rules are specifically or generally mentioned we cannot assume that the faq applys to all deepstriking units. normally they would state as such if it did.

 Bausk wrote:
More specifically the mawlocs rules by pass the standard placement by replacing the mawloc with a blast marker if it is to be placed on enemy models in either case of scatter or by choice as clarified by the faq. As only the mawloc and its rules are specifically or generally mentioned we cannot assume that the faq applys to all deepstriking units. normally they would state as such if it did.

Absolutely false. You do not place the marker until after you scatter. Re-read the rules please.

The base rule is "If the mawloc deepstrikes" and initial placement is apart of deepstrike, yes? The faq asks if the mawloc chooses to deepstrike onto a enemy model/unit and the answer was yes the mawloc can. Ofcourse I'm paraphrasing though.

 Bausk wrote:
The base rule is "If the mawloc deepstrikes" and initial placement is apart of deepstrike, yes? The faq asks if the mawloc chooses to deepstrike onto a enemy model/unit and the answer was yes the mawloc can. Ofcourse I'm paraphrasing though.

"If a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following." (51 Tyrnaid Codex). and then it goes on to describe what happens to the unit that the Mawloc Deep Struck onto.

Where in there does it tell you that the initial placement can be on top of another model. (Hint: They do not say that in the quote) Therefore it must be a function of the Deep Strike Rules.

The DS initial placement rules must still be followed as the quote tells us what happens if the Mawloc would mishap from being at a point occupied by another model after the DS scatter dice are rolled, which is well after Initial model placement.

Sure it does; " If the mawloc deep strikes onto a point occupied by another model". Deep strike is initial placement to actual deployment/mishap.

"Q: Can a Mawloc choose to Deep Strike onto a point occupied by an enemy model on purpose in order to use the Terror from the Deep special rule? (p51) A: Yes."

The question specifically asks about the mawloc, its special rule and references the page number. At no point in the question or answer is the general rules for deep strike mentioned or referenced.

You and others are making an ill assumption based on "anywhere on the table" while ignoring that the table is defined and cited, by yourself no less, as the playable area including terrain. This has been shown repeatedly not to include models, modles bases of hulls.

Also it has been shown repeatedly that yes you have permission to place on the table under the models, bases and hulls you do have to physically place the model on the table and not the models, bases or hulls. Which you do not have permission to do.

and also demontrated repeatedly you do not have permission to hypothetically place the model through or under the models, bases amd hulls.

Further more dispite repeated requests for a citation for permission to smash models so you can place your model on the table we are yet to see one...largely because we all know no such permission exists.

In the face of all the evidence to the contrary you and others persist in maintaining the blatantly incorrect assumption that you are right because the deep strike rule states "anywhere on the table".

So you roll on the Mishap table before rolling scatter?

Damn you Happy, why you gotta come in here and ruin my argument with one question? LoL

Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

 Bausk wrote:
Damn you Happy, why you gotta come in here and ruin my argument with one question? LoL

Because that exact things has been pointed out many times already? :-)

This is the actual simplified process of deep striking models:

- place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position where you would like it to arrive.

- roll for scatter to determine the model's final position.

- the unit's remaining models are arranged around the first one

- If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be deployed, because at least one model would land partially or fully off the table, in impassable terrain, on top of a friendly model or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, roll on the Deep strike Mishap table.

THIS IS WHERE the Mawloc's special rule kicks in.

Instead of rolling on Mishap table, replace the model with a large blast marker.


So you place the Mawloc model on top of enemys models, and after that you replace it with a large blast marker.

No. You place it, determine scatter, THEN replace with a marker. Replacing it with a marker prior to scattering is breaking rules.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. You place it, determine scatter, THEN replace with a marker. Replacing it with a marker prior to scattering is breaking rules.

Correct, and that's what I said, wasn't it?


My last sentence was referring to the funny fact, that you infact place models on top of each other according to rules, even though not many play it that way.

Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

Polecat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No. You place it, determine scatter, THEN replace with a marker. Replacing it with a marker prior to scattering is breaking rules.

Correct, and that's what I said, wasn't it?

My last sentence was referring to the funny fact, that you infact place models on top of each other according to rules, even though not many play it that way.

Sorry, I read your last sentence to say you put the model there and then immediately put the marker there (ignoring scatter).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

Nos. Forget the 1inch claim. Let's say that even tho DS counts as having moved, and while placing the model where you want to, wait for it, DS, you don't think it counts as ,DS, so you're making up a whole new time in the game called, I have no clue .......... Let's move onto the poll question which you continue to ignore.

RAW. Permission to smash my models. I've been waiting since page 1. The poll overwhelmingly agrees you're wrong, but please list the rule that says you have permission to smash my models. If you can't and you want to make your argument RAI, please take 10 seconds and think it through so I do not have to post how bad that game would work out for you.

"Anywhere on the table" is the permission to, wait for it, place the model anywhere on the table...

There is no restrictions on anywhere, and if the model wants to be where your model is then we have permission to place it in that spot, models being in the way does not matter, so we forcibly place it "Anywhere on the table"

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

I. Don't. Deepstrike. Models. That. Can. Scatter. So, again, how does this benefit my army? The only army I play with DS is mordrak, and you can bet I am not going to intentionally mishap him

Your attempt to colour others arguments by stating bias is appalling.

Stormbreed wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Storm - because your claim is the 1" rule applies, yet it absolutely does not, because initial DS placement is - placement.

I'll just place anywhere on the table, barring the specific exceptions listed, without making more rules up.

Nos. Forget the 1inch claim. Let's say that even tho DS counts as having moved, and while placing the model where you want to, wait for it, DS, you don't think it counts as ,DS, so you're making up a whole new time in the game called, I have no clue

So, again, you are claiming that you cannot mishap by scattering into impassable terrain? GIven you are claiming it is movement, and all. You havent answered that easy question - do so, or accept that it isnt movement (btw - we've proven it isnt movement, i just want you to back up your assertions, or see the consequence of them, so you can see how inane an assertion it is)

Stormbreed wrote: .......... Let's move onto the poll question which you continue to ignore.

Not ignored. Given you an answer a few times. Now, you dont LIKE the answer, but that isnt my issue.

Stormbreed wrote:RAW. Permission to smash my models.

I have placed my models according to the rulebooks use of "table". You are wanting to use the dictionary definition of table. In a game where you are playing rules-shenanigans, and want to use something not supported by 40k, then I will do exactly that, and place them on the table. If your models are in the way - too bad. Youre the one who altered the rules first.

Stormbreed wrote: I've been waiting since page 1. The poll overwhelmingly agrees you're wrong,

The plural of anecdote is evidence?

Stormbreed wrote:but please list the rule that says you have permission to smash my models. If you can't and you want to make your argument RAI, please take 10 seconds and think it through so I do not have to post how bad that game would work out for you.

Already, repeatedly, given.

I'm just going to play by the rules and place my models ANYWHERE on the table - using how 40k defines the table, which is fairly inclusive you would find if you took "10 seconds" to think it through, rather than repeatedly erring as you are doing now - barring the restrictions, and if I wish to do so over other models, then as a suitable compromise to placing my models on yours, I will point to the position. If you are unhappy - because you are labouring under a false belief as to what "table" means within the 40k ruleset, and absolutely insist my model makes contact with the table, then I will accede to your wishes as best I can.

Now, any chance you could find it in you to answer the query on how a model can move when it hasnt even arrived yet? Page and paragrapgh would be great right now, forum tenets and all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

I. Don't. Deepstrike. Models. That. Can. Scatter. So, again, how does this benefit my army? The only army I play with DS is mordrak, and you can bet I am not going to intentionally mishap him

Your attempt to colour others arguments by stating bias is appalling.

What makes you so certain that statement was directed at you? It was more of a statement on what I've seen multiple times on YMDC.

Read but didn't contribute to other thread. voted - Yes to both, based on how we (meta) currently play it.

But RaW I am less sure of. Seems like one of those things where the writers didn't get their point accross well.

'Anywhere' should mean anywhere. But 'on' should also mean on. Then again its pretty easy to pop a 'Anywhere avaliable' in should they have so wished.

WMS should only be applicable if other Movement rules are for the placement before scatter (and IMO they are not).

But if anyone actually tried to rest their drop pods on my models I would Hulk out.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep, and apparenlty you get told youre TFG for pointing out that this is, in fact, how the DS rules work.

Don't you know, only TFG insists on playing by the rules of the game, to prove you aren't TFG you have to make houserules that benefit your army more than your opponents.[/sarcasm]

I. Don't. Deepstrike. Models. That. Can. Scatter. So, again, how does this benefit my army? The only army I play with DS is mordrak, and you can bet I am not going to intentionally mishap him

Your attempt to colour others arguments by stating bias is appalling.

What makes you so certain that statement was directed at you? It was more of a statement on what I've seen multiple times on YMDC.

Ah, so when directly quoting someone you ARENT directing your response at them?

Odd, as thats what quoting usually means. Maybe be more explicit next time in your sarcastic responses to threads.

Looking back through the thread, aren't you the one arguing for using the rules as they're written rather than injecting houserules where placing models while deep striking counts as movement? Wouldn't I then be agreeing with you?

I think both sides need to understand that placing a deep striking model is not movement, but scattering is.
Haven't voted, what's the point?

 fuusa wrote:
I think both sides need to understand that placing a deep striking model is not movement, but scattering is.
Haven't voted, what's the point?

So you can never Mishap from impassable terrain? (picking the degenerate single model unit case)

Scattering is not movement; the unit hasnt even arrived, yet you are claiming it is moving?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Scattering is not movement; the unit hasnt even arrived, yet you are claiming it is moving?

Ok then, I'll use your debate strategy and ask you to prove that (scattering is not moving), page and para.

1) It isnt a "debate strategy" of mine, its called debate and in the forum tenets. Perhaps you should give them a read?
2) You are making the claim it IS movement, so perhaps you can prove it? (proving a negative is not strictly possible)

My claim that it isnt movement is simple - it never states the scatter is movement, and the unit hasnt even arrived when you roll scatter.

I notice you ducked the question I asked, which handily proves you wrong - can you mishap from scattering into impassable terrain? A simple Yes or No from you is all I am asking. Stormbreed was unable to answer, maybe you can?