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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Exactly, just like every other DSing unit.

No, every other deep striking unit needs to placed on the table first.

The Mawloc rules do not make a special provision for the initial placement, just "if the the mawloc deepstrikes onto a point occupied by another model" so the initial placement of DSing units can be " onto a point occupied by another model" as confirmed by the Mawloc Rules.

Wrong, the rule does give it special provision for placement. The whole entire rule talks about how you place the model. Once again, I will quote the rule. How many times are you going to ignore this?

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."

Do you see how the model doesn't get placed until all the other models are moved out of the road? Also when it says "If the Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model" the term deep strike also refers to the initial placement of the model. Look at how the deep strike rule is worded.

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows:

First, place one model from the unit.......................

The term deep strike also includes the initial placement of the model so its beyond me how you can say that that it doesn't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Which mawlocs rules over ride as "if mawloc deepstrikes" section states a specific mention and explaination of if mawloc deepstrikes (which is by choice or scatter as confirmed by the faq) on to the table that is occupied by models.

Not true, they are telling you what happens if that situation arises. Which shows us that when they say "Anywhere on the table" they actually mean "Anywhere on the table" The Mawloc text confirms it as it has extra rules for what happens if this happens.

There is nothing in the Mawloc's rule that overrides the initial model placement for Deep Strike.

Once again, "If the Mawloc deep strikes...." also includes the intial placement of the model. The term deep strike is very specific and the intial placement of the model in included under it as a bullet point. I have showed you the rule now. If you want to claim that the intial placement of the model is not part of the deep strike then that is your problem and not mine.

disdamn wrote:
In every single instance of 40k rules all models must be at least 1" from an enemy model unless it is in close combat.

Remember that rule is for moving, you can not move within 1 inch of an enemy unless in CC...

And yet it mentions the assault phase as being the only exception. Assault =/= movement. If it was a movement rule only then why mention assault?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Exactly, just like every other DSing unit.

No, every other deep striking unit needs to placed on the table first.

The Mawloc rules do not make a special provision for the initial placement, just "if the the mawloc deepstrikes onto a point occupied by another model" so the initial placement of DSing units can be " onto a point occupied by another model" as confirmed by the Mawloc Rules.

Wrong, the rule does give it special provision for placement. The whole entire rule talks about how you place the model. Once again, I will quote the rule. How many times are you going to ignore this?

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Place a large blast template directly over the spot the Mawloc is emerging from. Every Unit under the template suffers a number of Strength 6, AP2 hits equal to the number of models in that unit that are wholly or partially covered by the template. Vehicles are always struck on their rear armour. If any unit still has surving models under the template, move that unit by the minimum distance necessary to clear all models from beneath the template whilst maintaining squad coherency and avoiding impassable terrain. Units that were locked in combat prior to the Mawloc's attack must remain in base combat if possible, but otherwise models cannot be moved within 1" of an enemy model. Vehicles, including immobile vehicles, retain their orginial facing if they are moved. Any models that cannot be moved out of the way are destroyed. After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc."

Do you see how the model doesn't get placed until all the other models are moved out of the road? Also when it says "If the Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model" the term deep strike also refers to the initial placement of the model. Look at how the deep strike rule is worded.

Roll for the arrival of all deep striking units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows:

First, place one model from the unit.......................

The term deep strike also includes the initial placement of the model so its beyond me how you can say that that it doesn't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Which mawlocs rules over ride as "if mawloc deepstrikes" section states a specific mention and explaination of if mawloc deepstrikes (which is by choice or scatter as confirmed by the faq) on to the table that is occupied by models.

Not true, they are telling you what happens if that situation arises. Which shows us that when they say "Anywhere on the table" they actually mean "Anywhere on the table" The Mawloc text confirms it as it has extra rules for what happens if this happens.

There is nothing in the Mawloc's rule that overrides the initial model placement for Deep Strike.

Once again, "If the Mawloc deep strikes...." also includes the intial placement of the model. The term deep strike is very specific and the intial placement of the model in included under it as a bullet point. I have showed you the rule now. If you want to claim that the intial placement of the model is not part of the deep strike then that is your problem and not mine.

disdamn wrote:
In every single instance of 40k rules all models must be at least 1" from an enemy model unless it is in close combat.

Remember that rule is for moving, you can not move within 1 inch of an enemy unless in CC...

And yet it mentions the assault phase as being the only exception. Assault =/= movement. If it was a movement rule only then why mention assault?

Sure but show me where in the DS rules you are allowed to Assault the same turn you arrive from DS? Wait there are no rules for that. In fact you specifically cannot assault the turn you arrive from DS, so no you cannot place a DS model less than 1" from an enemy model. The only modification to that I've encountered in the Mawloc, and even the Mawloc is not actually placed in this scenario. Instead the blast template is used, hits and wounds are resolved, and then models are placed outside the blast marker, and then the Mawloc is placed in the center of that. And hey, check the sizing difference between the Mawloc's base and the Large Blast Template, there's a size difference there that puts the Mawloc at least 1" from all enemy models when it's finally placed on the board.

 DarthOvious wrote:


Wrong, the rule does give it special provision for placement. The whole entire rule talks about how you place the model. Once again, I will quote the rule. How many times are you going to ignore this?

"Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

Do you see how the model doesn't get placed until all the other models are moved out of the road? Also when it says "If the Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model" the term deep strike also refers to the initial placement of the model. Look at how the deep strike rule is worded.

You are ignoring a critical part of that rule.

Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

I bolded it for you. Do not roll for Mishap table. When do you roll for mishap? There is only one way to roll for mishap, and that is to follow the deep strike rules all the way through.

Lets see what the mishap rules say:

"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 rnodel, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, somethmg has gone wrong."

This is the requirment to be able to roll on the mishap table. If those requirements are not met, you are not allowed to roll for mishap, and therefore Mawlocs rule would not come into play at all.

You absolutely need to be able to place a model over enemy models when deep striking, or Mawloc would not work.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, actually, YOU didnt read the rules posted.

Actually I did read the rule posted. You obviously didn't read it though or you are not reading it correctly.

IF the mawloc deepstrikes.

Read the deep strike rule. Do you see how the inital placement of the model is part of the deep strike? This proves you wrong. If you want to argue that placing the model isn't part of the deep strike then what is it?

1) Is it a plane journey to Thailand?

2) Is it a small Czeckoslovakian traffic warden?

3) Is it banana coloured urangutan?

If placing the model is not part of the deep strike then you can't place the model on the table anyway. So you need to say that yes it does.

Meaning you must follow the initial placement rules - of placing the model anywhere on the table, INCLUDING on top of other models, BEFORE you can determine if you have reached this "if" statement.

Well according to you you don't since you argue the inital placement rules are not part of the deep strike.

If I place the Mawloc 13" away from any unit, then I will never reach that "if" statement, yet you are attempting to claim you would still be placing the blast marker - despite the if not being resolved as true. This is incorrect.

The IF statement is referring to the specific case your Mawloc is deep striking on top of another unit. Notice you don't get that permission in the normal deep strike rules to ignore the mishap table.

So no, the TftD rules, as we have pointed out all along, do NOT give specific allowance to DS on top of another model, those rules were already contained in the DS rules.

I see, and do you want to argue that Logans rule allows the PEN to be used when deep striking? If not, why not. Let me give you a clue, its because you argued that just because Logans rules allow it then that didn't mean the PEN was allowed and that Logans rule had been changed.

I find it funny now that you want to use the The Terror of the deep special rule to confirm the way deep strike works when you already argue that FAQs already change rules.

What I am arguing, is the inital placement of the model is indeed contained in the ToftD rule cause the term deep strike includes that intial placement of the model. I don't see how it doesn't. For you to deny this, then you would need to argue that the initial placement of the model isn't part of the deep strike and thus you cannot place the model when deep striking anyway.

Now can you be convinced?

If I concede do you then concede that the PEN can indeed be used on a deep strike? Afterall thay can't possibly change any rules with an FAQ can they according to your argument here?

Oh, and as for your proof by anecdote, I've played in 100s of tournaments at dozens of venues, not just in the UK, and have never heard of people not letting others DS on top of other models. Ever. Never been an issue. People even pointed out in 5th that he mawloc FAQ simply confirmed what was already known - that the 40k-contextually defined "table" does literally mean the entirety of the playing surface, models and all.

In 5th models were Imppassable terrain and you couldn't deep strike onto impassable terrain. So I don't see how the Mawloc FAQ confirmed what was correct in 5th when it was abundantly clear in 5th that you couldn't do such a thing. i.e.

P1) In 5th you could not deep strike onto impassable terrain.

P2) Models in 5th counted as Impassable terrain

C1) In 5th you could not deep strike onto models

Premise 1 and 2 are absolute indisputable facts about 5th edition, so the conlclusion is air tight. If they played differently in the tournaments you attended for 5th then you did it wrong.

disdamn wrote:


Sure but show me where in the DS rules you are allowed to Assault the same turn you arrive from DS? Wait there are no rules for that. In fact you specifically cannot assault the turn you arrive from DS, so no you cannot place a DS model less than 1" from an enemy model. The only modification to that I've encountered in the Mawloc, and even the Mawloc is not actually placed in this scenario.

If a different deep striking model was placed within 1" of an enemy model it would not assault the enemy model. It would trigger a mishap to avoid being with in 1" of the enemy. This in no way means that you cannot attempt to place a deep striking model within 1" of an enemy model.

disdamn wrote:
Sure but show me where in the DS rules you are allowed to Assault the same turn you arrive from DS? Wait there are no rules for that. In fact you specifically cannot assault the turn you arrive from DS, so no you cannot place a DS model less than 1" from an enemy model. The only modification to that I've encountered in the Mawloc, and even the Mawloc is not actually placed in this scenario. Instead the blast template is used, hits and wounds are resolved, and then models are placed outside the blast marker, and then the Mawloc is placed in the center of that. And hey, check the sizing difference between the Mawloc's base and the Large Blast Template, there's a size difference there that puts the Mawloc at least 1" from all enemy models when it's finally placed on the board.

Exactly, the Mawloc rule also states that enemy models must be 1" away as well. I like your point how you can only be in base contact in assault and assault can't happen from deep strike.

This is the kind of stuff that happens when people want to find easter eggs in the rules. They end breaking every part of the game entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polecat wrote:
You are ignoring a critical part of that rule.

No I'm not.

Terror from the Deep: If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do the following.

How does this contradict what I said? You don't roll on the mishap table, thats it.

I bolded it for you. Do not roll for Mishap table. When do you roll for mishap? There is only one way to roll for mishap, and that is to follow the deep strike rules all the way through.

When deep striking on top of another unit. I have showed where the intial placement of the model counts as part of the deep strike. If you scatter and avoid the unit then you are not rolling on the mishap table anyway. The ToftD rule doesn't tell you that you do not need to roll for scatter, you still do.

Lets see what the mishap rules say:

"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 rnodel, or on top of or within 1" of an enemy model, somethmg has gone wrong."

This is the requirment to be able to roll on the mishap table. If those requirements are not met, you are not allowed to roll for mishap, and therefore Mawlocs rule would not come into play at all.

Can you clarrify why that is the case?

You absolutely need to be able to place a model over enemy models when deep striking, or Mawloc would not work.

How so? The term deep strike entails all the bullet points under its heading. It entails the intial placement for the model, it entails the scatter, it entails the final location.

Doesnt the mawlocs terror from the deep in fact say to resolve the blast and then move models BEFORE you place it, and yet after you roll deep strike scatter?

Eihnlazer wrote:
Doesnt the mawlocs terror from the deep in fact say to resolve the blast and then move models BEFORE you place it, and yet after you roll deep strike scatter?

They want to argue that the initial placement is still done. Talking to these kind of people is like trying to draw blood out a stone. They don't realise that common sense needs to be used sometimes but they want to argue strict RAW but then try to warp what is being said to say something else.

They ignore the fact that in the normal deep strike rules you place the model on the table and if you roll a hit it stays on the table. The Mawloc doesn't do this, it has special rules in regards to how it is placed which are different from the normal deep strike rules.

 DarthOvious wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Doesnt the mawlocs terror from the deep in fact say to resolve the blast and then move models BEFORE you place it, and yet after you roll deep strike scatter?

They want to argue that the initial placement is still done. Talking to these kind of people is like trying to draw blood out a stone. They don't realise that common sense needs to be used sometimes but they want to argue strict RAW but then try to warp what is being said to say something else.

They ignore the fact that in the normal deep strike rules you place the model on the table and if you roll a hit it stays on the table. The Mawloc doesn't do this, it has special rules in regards to how it is placed which are different from the normal deep strike rules.

Do you really think your "holier than thou" attitude is helping your argumentation?

People should respect your view on the rules and vice versa.

Darth - you have two critical misunderstandings here, which are affecting your ability to debate logically.

1)The easiest is that movement during Assault is still movement, with additional allowances. Please, review the assault section and notice that moving chargers is, in fact, a move. THis destroys your "you cannot place within 1" unless you are assaulting" as this still only refers to "moves", not "place"

2) I absolutely agree that the DS ruels are followed, until you get to the IF statement. You are, categorically, stating they are not.,

The VERY FIRST THING YOU DO is PLACE a model from the unit where WANT the unit to arrtive, and then scatter

Then, IF the model would cause a mishap - say, by being on top of a model - you go to the mishap chart.

But WAIT! THe TftD rule states what you do instead of rolling on the mishap - the IF statement.

IF you would mishap

This means

IF you would be placed within 1" of an enemy unit, or on top of them, or within impassable terrain [etc...] THEN you use the alternative rules, which involves the blast marker

This means, with absolute certainty, that the Mawloc model must be on the table before you determine if it mishaps. IFF it mishaps do you replace the model with the blast marker

Meaning that the TfTD rule is not triggered until after initial placmeent and scatter, meaning it and of itself cannot provide permission to place a model on top of another model when DS

This is incontrovertible.

Given you CANNOT use the TftD rules to deterine initial placement - proven - your entire argument is defunct.

The permission to place the Mawloc - or ANY model in ANY DS unit - is contained within the initial allowance to place the model anywhere on the table - as proven by the FAQ confirmation.

I am not using the FAQ as precedence, I am using it as confirmation. An entirely apples and oranges to PEN, as you should be aware.

Your argument is foiled, again. You have critically misunderstood the TftD rule, and this has been explained a number of times now.

 Mywik wrote:
Do you really think your "holier than thou" attitude is helping your argumentation?

Just calling it how I see it. Besides you have a cheek to talk anout "holier than thou attitudes"

People should respect your view on the rules and vice versa.

To bad none of you have showed me any respect to begin with. In particular some of the posters in this thread (not you) have already insulted me before and it was uncalled for, so I don't give a damn what they think about me.

Ok yeah, you are supposed to place the first model of a unit on the table before scatter.

But in the advent of you placing it on top of an enemy unit, arent you then supposed to, instead of placing the actual model, denote where you were going to place it with a marker instead of acctually placing it?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Do you really think your "holier than thou" attitude is helping your argumentation?

Just calling it how I see it. Besides you have a cheek to talk anout "holier than thou attitudes"

People should respect your view on the rules and vice versa.

To bad none of you have showed me any respect to begin with. In particular some of the posters in this thread (not you) have already insulted me before and it was uncalled for, so I don't give a damn what they think about me.

Maybe you should stop finding reasons for why someone argues a certain way and instead just argue the points he makes. Discrediting other posters motives wont help any argument at all. For both sides.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
Do you really think your "holier than thou" attitude is helping your argumentation?

Just calling it how I see it. Besides you have a cheek to talk anout "holier than thou attitudes"

People should respect your view on the rules and vice versa.

To bad none of you have showed me any respect to begin with. In particular some of the posters in this thread (not you) have already insulted me before and it was uncalled for, so I don't give a damn what they think about me.

Then use the report button, thats what it is there for. Continuing to insult others helps noone.

I assume you cannot answer why you arent placing the Mawloc before rolling for scatter or determining mishap? As tftd ONLY takes place IF you mishap, as the very first line of the rule states?

I think the inevitable impasse has been reached.

edit :

We'll just add this which arrived just as the thread was locked.

Stormbreed wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


"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."

It is just clarifying how the DS rules work.

This FAQ to me shows you can not place your model on another model, there would be no reason to have this FAQ otherwise.

You do not have permission to move terrain either and we know you can't deep strike on top of battlements. By. Nos and DRs RAW, why not just smash them until you reach the table ? Wait I know, because it's not something that is RAW it is something they are using to try and support their claims.

The 1inch rule is a part of movement, DS counts as having moved.

The interesting part of the discussion is actually deciding if you can place your desired location on top of me, gamesmanship says, why the heck not, better chance to Mishap. But that Mawloc FAQ stings of bad wording and gives it permission do so, which other models do not have.

My way has always been I wanna go here, and the rules seem to say place the model where you want it on the table. We know DS counts as having moved so you can't be within 1inch of enemy models.

So RAW I don't think you can, RAI I'd allow it with the greater chance of Mishaps. In the fury of a battle how could the models really know they were DS'in somewhere safe.

As I type this I picture me and NOS playing, I play nids, and have a solo Trygon prime, he places his desired DS location on top of my Trygon prime.
Me. "Nos, you know you have to be able to place the model on the table"
Nos. "Oh I know Dan". (nos pulls out hammer)

Once the Trygon is demolished and seeing as he's alone not within 1inch of another model I think NOS might place his model and roll for DS.