Mawloc and Deep Strike

[GoozzZ]

Can I aim with deep strike onto enemy units or not? Rules says "place one model anywhere on the table" but should deep strike ignore rules about models and 1" away from enemy when we place 1st model?

For example. I'm deep striking SM Terminators. I place first model on top of enemy model. Roll for scatter and get "HIT". My model stay where it was and I can't place one or more models because it on top or 1" within of enemy models. So deep strike mishap occurs.

Second example. I'm deep striking Mawloc. I place model on top of enemy model. Roll for scatter and get "HIT". My model stay where it was and I can't place one or more models because it on top or 1" within of enemy models. So deep strike mishap should occurs. But instead of this I workout the Mawloc special rule.

Are this examples right?

And if yes. What happens to drop pod if I deep strike it on enemy models and roll "HIT" on scatter? Drop pod rules says "reduce scatter distance", but obviosly there is no scatter distance to reduce because of "HIT" rolled. Is this way to get mishap with drop pod?

PS Maybe it looks like I was mad on my toy soldiers and his rules... But anyway =)

[DarkLink]

Do you have the actual codex yet, 'cause it sounds like we need it to answer the question. It might just be clearly spelled out in the actual 'dex.

[BuFFo]

For example. I'm deep striking SM Terminators. I place first model on top of enemy model. Roll for scatter and get "HIT". My model stay where it was and I can't place one or more models because it on top or 1" within of enemy models. So deep strike mishap occurs.

You are correct.


Second example. I'm deep striking Mawloc. I place model on top of enemy model. Roll for scatter and get "HIT". My model stay where it was and I can't place one or more models because it on top or 1" within of enemy models. So deep strike mishap should occurs. But instead of this I workout the Mawloc special rule.

The Tyranid Codex answers this under the Mawloc entry.


What happens to drop pod if I deep strike it on enemy models and roll "HIT" on scatter? Drop pod rules says "reduce scatter distance", but obviosly there is no scatter distance to reduce because of "HIT" rolled. Is this way to get mishap with drop pod?

The drop pod will mishap then.

[AbusePuppy]

As I understand it, yes, you are correct. The important distinction is that you designate a Deep Strike point before you place the models. You are free to designate an "illegal" (in terms of model placement) point, you're simply very likely to end up mishapping.

Drop Pods/Mycetic Spores are different- you reduce the scatter distance by enough to avoid the terrain/models. If you designate your target point to be on top of another model or impassable terrain (which is still legal), it is impossible to reduce your scatter in such a way that you end up in a legal position- you can increase it, but the pod/spore rules do not allow you to increase the scatter distance.

[GoozzZ]

Do you have the actual codex yet
Yes, I have it two days ago by advance order. Mawloc special rule starts with: "If Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the Deep Strike Mishap table but instead do following." So after yours comments I think I was right. Thanks for all.

[MarshalAdamar]

Some one needs to look up the deep striking rules in the BRB (I don't have access to mine right now)

I'm almost positive it states that you must place them legally, i.e. You cannot place a deep striking model on top of enemy models. And I think it says the same thing for drop pods.

Because you must place the first model, not declare where you want to roll your scatter from but you MUST actually PLACE the model on the table and since you can't place a model on top of enemy models it’s not legal.

But I don't use a lot of deep strikers so I could be wrong

[BuFFo]

Some one needs to look up the deep striking rules in the BRB

You know what, I totally agree! :D


(I don't have access to mine right now)

Oh that's okay! When debating rules, its alright not to have a rule book handy, because even though I am sure you are correct here, some people may just end up making rules up and misleading other posters with lies. :)


I'm almost positive it states that you must place them legally, i.e. You cannot place a deep striking model on top of enemy models. And I think it says the same thing for drop pods.

Because you must place the first model, not declare where you want to roll your scatter from but you MUST actually PLACE the model on the table and since you can't place a model on top of enemy models it’s not legal.

Hmmmm.... Wait a second... :confused:


But I don't use a lot of deep strikers so I could be wrong

Actually, you ARE!

Next time, have a rule book handy before saying anything ;)

[j-orge-287]

When any unit deep strikes it must not go near any enemy unit lest it gets delayed, misplaced or destroyed.
When a Mawloc deep strikes, it shoots up from underneath the enemy. You put the large blast template wherever he deep strikes, and any enemy underneath it takes an S6 AP2 hit. This means that he can deep strike onto enemy units. The enemy must then move away from the template.
I wish the Trygon could do this, he is so much better at fighting.

[Shavnir]

Next time, have a rule book handy before saying anything ;)

The irony here is that you didn't read the rulebook either. The start of the second paragraph of the deep strike rules on page 95 of the mini book (and I believe BRB as well) says you place the model in the desired destination. This however leads to yet another gaping hole in the rules : Is a model being placed subject to the restrictions of normal movement. If you are subject to those restrictions then he was actually correct, you cannot have a situation where a deep striking model on a hit roll of the scatter die will mishap.

Now if models being placed on the board is NOT subject to normal movement restrictions then Marbo and Lictors are going to start popping out of walls and stuff and its going to get crazy.

For extra hilarity consider that the Mawloc will always hit itself with its S6 AP2 blast. ;)

[BuFFo]

The irony here is that you didn't read the rulebook either. The start of the second paragraph of the deep strike rules on page 95 of the mini book (and I believe BRB as well) says you place the model in the desired destination.

No irony here... I can read and understand what is written just fine. You, on the other hand....

Where is the restriction about where to place the scatter marker (the model) that the OP is asking about in his very first question? There is none.


This however leads to yet another gaping hole in the rules : Is a model being placed subject to the restrictions of normal movement

If the scatter marker (the model) was subject to Movement Phase Restrictions, guess what... The Deep Strike rules would say so. Simple, lol!


If you are subject to those restrictions then he was actually correct, you cannot have a situation where a deep striking model on a hit roll of the scatter die will mishap.

You can 'if' all you want, but this is a rule forum, and we try to stick with whats written in the rule books. The Deep Strike rules provide no restriction for the deep strike marker (the model) when placing it on the table.

The problem here is that you are some how treating the marker (the model) as 1) an actual model that is bound by rules given in the rest of the book (which is isn't) and 2) actually on the table (which the unit has not reached the table yet).

You can place the model anywhere that the Deep Strike rules allows, which is anywhere on the playing field (the table). Where you place it initially is NOT important as the unit is not on the table yet. Thats what the Scatter Roll determines.

[Shavnir]

Where is the restriction about where to place the scatter marker (the model) that the OP is asking about in his very first question? There is none.

Like I said before, the question lies in the game's definition of placement. Also the rules never refer to a scatter marker. It specifically refers to a model. Also you keep talking about the Scatter Marker, a concept I believe went away in 4th (maybe third) edition.

Additionally on page 13 it explicitly states "Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain". Combine this with a line from page 14 "Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it"

So in conclusion :

1 ) Deep strikes start with models being placed
2a ) Other models are impassable terrain
2b ) You cannot place models in impassable terrain
ergo
You cannot place the mawloc on top of other models.


You can 'if' all you want, but this is a rule forum, and we try to stick with whats written in the rule books. The Deep Strike rules provide no restriction for the deep strike marker (the model) when placing it on the table.

Except of course those implicit in all cases of placing a model on the table


The problem here is that you are some how treating the marker (the model) as 1) an actual model that is bound by rules given in the rest of the book (which is isn't) and 2) actually on the table (which the unit has not reached the table yet).

You can place the model anywhere that the Deep Strike rules allows, which is anywhere on the playing field (the table). Where you place it initially is NOT important as the unit is not on the table yet. Thats what the Scatter Roll determines.

There's no implication of this line of reasoning anywhere in the deep strike rules. Just an fyi.

EDIT (since 20 minutes isn't enough time for the 30 second timer to be appealed) :

Now to fix this problem. Personally I'll be going with the following errata on the rule (not saying I have any authority to issue such, just what I would do to fix it)

Replace the first paragraph of the Mawloc's "Terror from the Deep" rule with the following :

If the Mawloc arrives via deep strike do the following. First nominate a target point. Then roll a scatter die and 2d6 scattering that point accordingly. If the point goes off the board the Mawloc suffers a Deep Strike Mishap on the Deep Strike Mishap table. If the point is still on the board center a 5" S6 AP2 template on the point

<insert rest of paragraph 2 about models being moved and the like here>. After this has been resolved the Mawloc deep strikes without scattering on that location. Resolve any mishaps from impassable terrain as normal.

[Bean]

Shav's really right on this one:



1.) When a unit Deep Strikes, one model from the unit is placed on the table. (page 95)

2.) Models can't be placed in impassable terrain (page 14)

3.) Enemy models count as impassable terrain (page 13)

...

4.)Therefor, when the Mawlock Deep Strikes, it can't be placed on top of enemy models.



The rulebook is really quite explicit about this.

[BuFFo]

1) When you Deep Strike, you follow the rules for Deep Strike and nothing else.

2) Codex rules supersede basic rules.

My post on the first page is how you do it. Take it or leave it.

[HsojVvad]

Shav's really right on this one:



1.) When a unit Deep Strikes, one model from the unit is placed on the table. (page 95)

2.) Models can't be placed in impassable terrain (page 14)

3.) Enemy models count as impassable terrain (page 13)

...

4.)Therefor, when the Mawlock Deep Strikes, it can't be placed on top of enemy models.




The rulebook is really quite explicit about this.

Well the point is moot, but if we go by the 4th edtion Tyraind codex, there was are models that could go in impassable terrain. But now that we are using the 5th editon Tyraind codex I guess the point is moot now.

Here is my question as a newb to the rules. Where does it say you can't designate impable terrian for DS? You know, now that I am starting to learn the rules of 40K, I am starting to see how poorly written the rules are. We have to cross reference this rule, with that rule, and go over to this rule so we can see if we can DS?

If you read the DS rules, it just says place the model anywhere on the table. Then we roll for scatter, then we roll to see how far if we do scatter. So my question is, how do we know that the DS rule overides the rule on page 13 as was mentioned that models are impassable terrian, or does the model is impassable terrian rule overrieds the DS rule? Basically I am new to the gamin aspect of 40K so it's quite confusing to me how to be reading all these rules since they are all over the place.

One point to remember if I am reading correctly is: not that you can't DS on an enemy model, but that the DS model can be within 1" of an enemy model and can't be on a friendly model. So there has to be at least a 1" buffer zone to an enemy model when DS.

I don't see the point anyways just DS 1" away from the model. If you get a hit, you will still be under the large blast template for damage purposes, or am I reading that rule wrong as well?

[Shavnir]

1) When you Deep Strike, you follow the rules for Deep Strike and nothing else.

2) Codex rules supersede basic rules.

My post on the first page is how you do it. Take it or leave it.

The deep strike rules say place. The rules say you cannot place a model in impassable terrain. Show me where in the codex it allows you to place a model in impassable terrain.

[Bean]

Or, to be more specific, the rules for Deep Strike say, "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table." That's on page 95.

[Shavnir]

Well the point is moot, but if we go by the 4th edtion Tyraind codex, there was are models that could go in impassable terrain. But now that we are using the 5th editon Tyraind codex I guess the point is moot now.

Here is my question as a newb to the rules. Where does it say you can't designate impable terrian for DS? You know, now that I am starting to learn the rules of 40K, I am starting to see how poorly written the rules are. We have to cross reference this rule, with that rule, and go over to this rule so we can see if we can DS?

Welcome to 40k. Enjoy the rules potholes, its just part of the ride.


If you read the DS rules, it just says place the model anywhere on the table. Then we roll for scatter, then we roll to see how far if we do scatter. So my question is, how do we know that the DS rule overides the rule on page 13 as was mentioned that models are impassable terrian, or does the model is impassable terrian rule overrieds the DS rule? Basically I am new to the gamin aspect of 40K so it's quite confusing to me how to be reading all these rules since they are all over the place.

The DS rule gives us a guideline on how to resolve it if the models scatters into impassable terrain or on top of (or close to as the next question alludes to) enemy models. While it can result in situations that conflict with pages 13/14 of the rulebook it has a contingency for resolving those conflicts (the mishap table roll).


One point to remember if I am reading correctly is: not that you can't DS on an enemy model, but that the DS model can be within 1" of an enemy model and can't be on a friendly model. So there has to be at least a 1" buffer zone to an enemy model when DS.

I don't see the point anyways just DS 1" away from the model. If you get a hit, you will still be under the large blast template for damage purposes, or am I reading that rule wrong as well?

Now this is interesting. I'm not 100% sure how this interaction would work. The placement is legal, only the area of other models is considered impassable. The Mawloc's rule triggers if it deep strikes on top of an enemy model however if it is 1/2" away or whatever it clearly has not. Near as I can tell going by full RAW it would actually mishap in that case.

[Bean]

On page 14 it states: "Models cannot be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (like being able to fly above it) or both players agree to it."

Thus, when the Deep Strike rules require you to place a model on the table, you can't place it in impassable terrain, unless it has a specific exception in its profile (the Mawlock does not) or you get your opponent to agree to it (and you can basically do anything as long as your opponent agrees to it).

The rules for Deepstrike would have to pretty explicitly override the rule against placing a model into impassable terrain for it to be otherwise, and they do not do so.

I'd have to have the actual text from the Mawlock's rule to know for sure, but I suspect that Shav is also right when he notes that a Mawlock which deepstrikes within an inch of an enemy model but not actually on top of an enemy model would suffer a normal mishap.

[BuFFo]

Here is my question as a newb to the rules. Where does it say you can't designate impable terrian for DS?

Deep Strike has no such restriction. You can place the model/marker anywhere on the table before rolling for scatter.


You know, now that I am starting to learn the rules of 40K, I am starting to see how poorly written the rules are.

5th edition rules are the best rules written yet for 40k in its 23ish years of being on the planet. What makes the rules look poor are the poor interpretation of said rules on the internet.


We have to cross reference this rule, with that rule, and go over to this rule so we can see if we can DS?

Thats it. You don't cross reference anything with Deep Strike. What these two guys are doing are citing a rule elsewhere in the book and trying to make their point seem logical.

According to them, you can cross reference any rule you want whenever you want. So I guess when you Deep Strike in with a unit, after it enters play, you can cross reference the damage chart, pick a strength 10 large blast, and wound the unit.


If you read the DS rules, it just says place the model anywhere on the table.

Yes, that's exactly it! For someone who is new to the game, you have a great grasp of the rules.


One point to remember if I am reading correctly is: not that you can't DS on an enemy model, but that the DS model can be within 1" of an enemy model and can't be on a friendly model. So there has to be at least a 1" buffer zone to an enemy model when DS.

You had it right in your last quote. This quote is incorrect.

[Shavnir]

Deep Strike has no such restriction. You can place the model/marker anywhere on the table before rolling for scatter.

Its not nice to lie to new players you know.

[Bean]

There's no marker, Buffo, just a model that gets placed. Since models can't be placed in impassable terrain, the deepstriking model can't be placed in impassable terrain, either.

Basically, your argument boils down to the assertion that all rules exist in a complete vacuum and never interact with other rules at all. This is so obviously wrong and absurd that I won't even bother to point out the near-countless examples of rules-combinations upon which the game relies.

[Lerra]

For what it's worth, I've always seen it played that the model is used like a deep strike marker - the model isn't on the table until the whole unit arrives. It's simply representing a point in space where the unit will enter play.

Necron Monoliths are sort of like Mawlocs - both can enter play via deep strike and any enemy models in the deep strike area simply move out of the way. It's usually played that Monoliths may deep strike on top of enemy models.

edit: Consider the deep strike rules on p. 95 "If a scatter occurs, roll 2d6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position."

IF you are considering the original model to be on the table following normal movement and placement rules, then it moves 2d6 inches when scattering via those movement and placement rules. That would mean that it cannot move into impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy unit, which means that the deep striking unit cannot scatter into impassible terrain.

This is clearly not how the deep strike rules are played in the real world. People treat the center model in a deep strike like a marker, not like a model on the table.

[Mycroft Holmes]

I'm really enjoying how people are using 'markers' or perfect points (zero radius) for their DS and ignoring that the DeepStrike rules are specific:

Pg 95; second paragraph. "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice"

Nothing says you can't be within 1" or any thing like that, but you have to be able to put the model down. if you can your model down on the table in the center of an enemy unit; that's cool. You get to hope that it scatters just off the unit, but you still must be able to put the first model down.

None of the arguments I've heard suggest that to DS the Mawloc you don't have to "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table,..." Yes, it has specific rules for what happens instead of rolling on the mishap table, but that's the end result of a DS; you still have to place the model on the table.

Mycroft

PS. Physically dropping a Mawloc/Monolith on your opponent's models and arguing that it's "on the table," or that holding it slighting above is just as good, are not valid arguments.

[Lerra]

This is one of those cases where game-as-played trumps RAW. While I would love for deep strikers to be nearly immune to mishap (I play Deathwing and Chaos Daemons), I doubt I would ever have a tournament judge rule in my favor, regardless of RAW.

[gcsmith]

It deppends on RAI rather than RAW, everyone i know would take it as u could designate that area. Afterall its not wats written but wats intended that matters, since in the white dwarf they aimed it at the squad u could take it to mean u can.

[Shavnir]

edit: Consider the deep strike rules on p. 95 "If a scatter occurs, roll 2d6 to see how many inches the model moves away from the intended position."

IF you are considering the original model to be on the table following normal movement and placement rules, then it moves 2d6 inches when scattering via those movement and placement rules. That would mean that it cannot move into impassible terrain or within 1" of an enemy unit, which means that the deep striking unit cannot scatter into impassible terrain.


You bring up an interesting point. It may only be possible to mishap by starting within an inch of an enemy model and hitting on the scatter die. Man RAW is stupid.

[Bean]

As Shav says, you do appear to be correct, in that it looks like mishaps will almost never actually occur legally.

Unfortunately for the Mawlock, this means its ability will never work.

[Mycroft Holmes]

That's probably true, Lerra. Still, the fact that virtually everyone has been making the same mistake for as long as anyone can remember doesn't mean that it isn't a mistake. The Earth isn't flat, after all.

Except that the DeepStrike rules never mention ANY restrictions on where you place the first model (only that you be able to place it,) and the DeepStrike rules give explicit direction on what happens if you roll a scatter (why would you be looking at movement rules?)

There is no reason to look at "movement and placement rules" when discussing DeepStrike.

[Bean]

That's probably true, Lerra. Still, the fact that virtually everyone has been making the same mistake for as long as anyone can remember doesn't mean that it isn't a mistake. The Earth isn't flat, after all.

[david5th]

1) When you Deep Strike, you follow the rules for Deep Strike and nothing else.

2) Codex rules supersede basic rules.

My post on the first page is how you do it. Take it or leave it.

The rule is called " Terror from the Deep " for a reason. It erupts form the ground and kills the enemy, not die for some weird reason. As new rules are revised and release they will supersede other entries, if not the game would not evolve.

[Shavnir]

Except that the DeepStrike rules never mention ANY restrictions on where you place the first model (only that you be able to place it,) and the DeepStrike rules give explicit direction on what happens if you roll a scatter (why would you be looking at movement rules?)

There is no reason to look at "movement and placement rules" when discussing DeepStrike.

Because there are specific restrictions on model "placement". Page 14 explicitly prevents models from being placed in impassable terrain unless they have a special rule in their profile that states otherwise.

[Sam]

Because there are specific restrictions on model "placement". Page 14 explicitly prevents models from being placed in impassable terrain unless they have a special rule in their profile that states otherwise.

Except that the Mawloc does not treat enemy units as impassable terrain. Instead it blows them the hell up and moves them aside so it can sit there.

[Shavnir]

Except that the Mawloc does not treat enemy units as impassable terrain. Instead it blows them the hell up and moves them aside so it can sit there.

No, the Mawloc has a special rule regarding what happens if it mishaps due to enemy models. There's nothing in it that says it can be placed on top of them.

[Jwolf]

After reading this thread and the Mawloc rules, I agree that the RAW camp has the RAW right, and I'm clear that any upcoming FAQ would logically clarify that the Mawloc can DS targeting the middle of enemy units or whatever - that's sort of the point of the thing, isn't it?

[Bean]

Except that the DeepStrike rules never mention ANY restrictions on where you place the first model (only that you be able to place it,) and the DeepStrike rules give explicit direction on what happens if you roll a scatter (why would you be looking at movement rules?)

There is no reason to look at "movement and placement rules" when discussing DeepStrike.

You look at the movement rules because the model is first placed, an action which is, for whatever reason, restricted by one of the rules in the movement section and then moved, an action which is clearly restricted by the rules which restrict moving models.

I agree that your earlier point is very compelling--that the Deepstrike rules alone would prevent the Mawlock from targeting units by being placed directly on top of them before scattering--but I do think that, barring an explicit statement to the contrary, placing a model has to follow all of the rules for placing models and moving models has to follow all of the rules for moving models. I don't see any reason why these rules would not apply to deepstriking models.

[Papa Nurgle]

The way I see it is this. Since a model MUST be placed in order to Deep Strike, you may not OPT to Deep Strike into impassable terrain. Enemy units are not IMPASSABLE, therefore you can opt to DS there. More and more units make mishaps less than likely. Drop Pods, Mycetic Spores, and Monoliths avoid traditional mishaps. As for the Mawloc, the last part of the description states "After all casualties have been determined, replace the large blast template with the Mawloc." What is NOT clear is whether you place the model or set a marker. My understanding would be that you pick a spot for it to DS onto that is not IMPASSABLE, using the center point of the large blast template as the entry point. Then any models under the template suffer hits and then fall away from the template, leaving room for the Mawloc to enter play. Then the Mawloc replaces the template.

The Mawloc can still mishap if it deviates into impassable terrain or off the board.

It is also possible for the Mawloc to hit it's fellow Tyranids.

In the previous codex, Tyranid players could use the 5th edition rules to "bomb" units with deepstriking spore mines.


Just my 2 cents.

[TSINI]

although i utterly agree that the rules as written make it so the model must be placed on the table then scattered onto an enemy unit, i think it would be better (and i imagine this is how it will be faq'd) if you placed the blast marker down first, then scattered that, therefore allowing you to place the blast marker over an enemy squad (avoiding having to place the model down first), and pop up out of the ground. once the squad has taken the apropriate wounds, and has been moved away from the blast marker, then you can place the mawloc in the space created.

this would be playing in the spirit of the rules rather than rules as written. although this also may not be how the rules were intended.

[Bean]

Enemy units are not IMPASSABLE, therefore you can opt to DS there.

This is explicitly wrong, and the rule which makes it wrong has been quoted more than once in this very thread. Here it is again:

"Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."

That's on page 13 of the AoBR rulebook, in the movement section, under the Terrain heading.

[Papa Nurgle]

This is explicitly wrong, and the rule which makes it wrong has been quoted more than once in this very thread. Here it is again:

"Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."

That's on page 13 of the AoBR rulebook, in the movement section, under the Terrain heading.

You are correct sir. My bad. This makes for an interesting paradox since the DS rules simply state "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter die."

So a model using DS can never be placed onto an enemy unit on purpose. That changes a great many things.

Thank you for the insight.

[BuFFo]

lol at the people asking for a FAQ.

[Shavnir]

After reading this thread and the Mawloc rules, I agree that the RAW camp has the RAW right, and I'm clear that any upcoming FAQ would logically clarify that the Mawloc can DS targeting the middle of enemy units or whatever - that's sort of the point of the thing, isn't it?

I agree with you with one small exception. I never count on an obvious rules question hitting a GW FAQ. :p


lol at the people asking for a FAQ.

You're not very good at this trolling thing. Either get better or just stop trying, its just embarrassing now.

[BuFFo]

You're not very good at this trolling thing. Either get better or just stop trying, its just embarrassing now.

You are soooo adorable!

Here... Let me help you out, since its obvious you need some learnin' to do!

What a FAQ is (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019)

Eat up, young one, and welcome to the BoLs forum!

[HsojVvad]

This is explicitly wrong, and the rule which makes it wrong has been quoted more than once in this very thread. Here it is again:

"Remember that other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassable terrain."

That's on page 13 of the AoBR rulebook, in the movement section, under the Terrain heading.

Does this mean we have to be lawyers to play a game of 40K? One rule is on page 13, another rule is on page 95, then you have to go to the FAQ maybe, then again cross referecne on a different page.

GW should be making all the rules on one page. Even if they repeat a rule from a different page that would be welcomed instead of this what we have here now. We have to remind everyone a rule on one page effects a rule on another page.

So the question is, what rule takes presedence? Page 13, or page 95 where it says place model anywhere. If GW didn't want you to place a model anywhere it would have said so. Since it didn't or even give a reminder, then it should be able to place the mini anywhere you want. The only reason it wasn't done before, is because nobody wanted to use the mishap charts if they rolled a "Hit". Just because nobody did it that way before, dosn't mean it couldn't be done, all it ment was nobody did it.

[Bean]

You don't have to be a lawyer to play the game, but you do have to read all of the relevant rules to resolve any given rules question. In this case, though the rule on page 13 is, indeed, quite distant from the rules on page 95, they do still apply, because they restrict the action called for by page 95.


Or, you could look at it the way Mycroft Holmes put it, and note that even the rules on page 95 alone prevent you from deepstriking on top of enemy models.

The deepstrike rules themselves say that the model must be placed on the table. Sure, it can go anywhere, but it must be on the table. If it's on top of enemy models, it's not on the table.

[Shavnir]

You are soooo adorable!

Here... Let me help you out, since its obvious you need some learnin' to do!

What a FAQ is (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018&section=&aId=3400019)

Eat up, young one, and welcome to the BoLs forum!

More accurately a GW FAQ document is a collection of obvious questions with obvious answers that usually manages to miss at least 2-3 major questions per codex. And like I said before, please get better at trolling, this is really just depressing to watch.

[HsojVvad]

You make a good point Bean, I am starting to think I am wrong now. It's the going back and forth that is pretty confusing and easy to forget things.

So we can't DS on a unit, no big deal, since I think it's harder to land on a unit than getting a scatter. Most likely easier to scatter than land where you want, so we will just have to learn how to place a Mawloc and get the scatter we want.

[BuFFo]

More accurately a GW FAQ document is a collection of obvious questions with obvious answers that usually manages to miss at least 2-3 major questions per codex. And like I said before, please get better at trolling, this is really just depressing to watch.

Nope, go back and read that page again to see my point. Or do you need help? I would be more than happy to help you here if you need it. New forum posters like you are usually new to the game, and you may be missing some vital things about FAQs and Erratas that you need to understand to play the game properly.

Let me go ahead and help you.

Erratas are official changes that all players must obey if you wish to play by the printed rules.

FAQs are house rules. As a matter of fact, GW FAQs are written by non GW employees, specifically, gamers like you and me, concentrated on a specific yahoo group. FAQs are NOT official, and are simply suggestions. :)

You are welcome.

[gcsmith]

um from wat i read, if i may say so is that the mawloc rule states place model after the template is resolved, ie you may chose that point then place the model.
It also says if a mawloc 'deep strikes onto an enemy model' not scatter, surley if it could only scatter it would say so.

another edit, from the new trygon article on gw site

On the Tabletop: The Mawloc's strength obviously lies in the fact that your enemy will not be prepared, and will not know where it will strike. The Terror from the Deep special rule means the Mawloc will Deep Strike directly beneath the enemy causing carnage in their midst.

If you Deep Strike onto a point occupied by another model you place the large blast template over the spot where the Mawloc is emerging, and every unit under the template suffers a S6 hit equal to the number of models in the unit that are wholly, or partially, covered by the template. The attacks are even more devastating as they ignore armour saves, and any vehicles are always struck in the rear armour.

Another great feature of the Mawloc is its ability to burrow. As long as the Mawloc is not in close combat it can choose to re-burrow during its Movement phase. The model is removed from the table, and can Deep Strike again in the same devastating fashion in the next turn.

By the looks they intend for it to choose to strike from below.

[BuFFo]

um from wat i read, if i may say so is that the mawloc rule states place model after the template is resolved, ie you may chose that point then place the model.
It also says if a mawloc 'deep strikes onto an enemy model' not scatter, surley if it could only scatter it would say so.

another edit, from the new trygon article on gw site

On the Tabletop: The Mawloc's strength obviously lies in the fact that your enemy will not be prepared, and will not know where it will strike. The Terror from the Deep special rule means the Mawloc will Deep Strike directly beneath the enemy causing carnage in their midst.

If you Deep Strike onto a point occupied by another model you place the large blast template over the spot where the Mawloc is emerging, and every unit under the template suffers a S6 hit equal to the number of models in the unit that are wholly, or partially, covered by the template. The attacks are even more devastating as they ignore armour saves, and any vehicles are always struck in the rear armour.

Another great feature of the Mawloc is its ability to burrow. As long as the Mawloc is not in close combat it can choose to re-burrow during its Movement phase. The model is removed from the table, and can Deep Strike again in the same devastating fashion in the next turn.

By the looks they intend for it to choose to strike from below.

You are right, absolutely.

Codex rules always trump main book rules. Always. If it wasn't this way, you couldn't play the game.

[Shavnir]

Nope, go back and read that page again to see my point. Or do you need help? I would be more than happy to help you here if you need it. New forum posters like you are usually new to the game, and you may be missing some vital things about FAQs and Erratas that you need to understand to play the game properly.

Let me go ahead and help you.

Erratas are official changes that all players must obey if you wish to play by the printed rules.

FAQs are house rules. As a matter of fact, GW FAQs are written by non GW employees, specifically, gamers like you and me, concentrated on a specific yahoo group. FAQs are NOT official, and are simply suggestions. :)

You are welcome.

Congratulations, you have proven you can read. Now read pages 13, 14 and 95 (and heck, reread the Mawloc entry if you want) and quote where it says that I'm wrong.

[Bean]

The fact that GW doesn't know what its own rules do is hardly news, gcsmith. Despite what some GW article might indicate, you can't place the Mawloc on top of enemy units, and nothing in the codex says otherwise (despite Buffo's repeated assertions to the contrary.)

[Drakkan Vael]

I'd say if someone can resonably say he knows the rules, its the one who's written them. Who else would you look to?

[rle68]

It deppends on RAI rather than RAW, everyone i know would take it as u could designate that area. Afterall its not wats written but wats intended that matters, since in the white dwarf they aimed it at the squad u could take it to mean u can.


The biggest flaw ever to occur is to say RAI i will never allow you nor any tournement to use that arguement intent is for discussion but not for game play

thats what faq's are for.... RAW is all you can legally go with.. i agree its stupid but why do you think there are 4 pages of people arguing over arjac and his thunder hammer

[Bean]

I'd say if someone can resonably say he knows the rules, its the one who's written them. Who else would you look to?

The problem with the authors is that what they end up knowing is generally what they thought the rule was going to be, or intended the rule to be. In the case of FAQs issued some time after the original document, you might not necessarily get even that--you might be getting someone else's idea of what the author had in mind, or someone else's idea of how it should work, or the author's current idea about how it should work, even if it bears no relation to how he or she actually wrote it in the first place.

Presumably, authors always know how they intend for a rule to work. Unfortunately, they're not always skilled enough at writing to actually enact their intent through their rules, and they're not always smart or observant enough to notice when they've failed to do so.

Whoever wrote the rules for deepstriking and model placement managed to create a certain effect. I have no idea whether it was the effect he or she intended. I have no idea whether it was the same person who wrote the rules for the Mawloc, whether that person knew what the author(s) of the rules for deepstriking and model placement intended, or whether that person had even read those rules at all.

What I can say is that, if the person who wrote the rules for the Mawloc intended for it to be able to be placed on top of enemy models when deepstriking, he didn't read the deepstrike rules carefully enough and failed to write his own rule in a manner which enacted that intent. If he did read the deepstrike rules carefully enough, and did write his own rule correctly, then he didn't intend for the Mawloc to be placed on top of other models when deepstriking.

Regardless, it's clear that the authors aren't necessarily a good source of information about what the rules actually do. They can only really be relied on to tell us what they intended when writing particular rules, and even then, only for a limited amount of time after the rule has been written.

[Lerra]

RAI is still important, though. The new codices are playtested and balanced based on the way that GW interpreted the rules, even if that interpretation is technically wrong. If the RAW is written poorly, players are under no obligation to follow RAW over common sense. The more popular tournament FAQs contain plenty of rulings that go against RAW, especially when the wording of RAW was clearly an error or oversight.

[BuFFo]

Congratulations, you have proven you can read. Now read pages 13, 14 and 95 (and heck, reread the Mawloc entry if you want) and quote where it says that I'm wrong.

Already did multiple times.

Pages 13 and 14 have nothing to do with 95.

[Shavnir]

Already did multiple times.

Pages 13 and 14 have nothing to do with 95.

So out of curiosity how do rules that define rules for placing a model not affect placing a model in accordance with the deep strike rule?

[Ulfar]

They aren't rules for placing models they're rules for moving models.

The rules on pages 13 and 14 respectively specifically refer to the movement of models that are already on the board NOT models entering play from deep striking/reserve etc...

I believe that those arguing against the targeted deep strike are scared of the mawloc and I don't blame you. I'm scared myself.:)

In the deep striking rules it does state "First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like the unit to arrive, and roll the scatter dice."
Which can be interpreted several ways...the model must be ON the table...the model can be anywhere on the table.....I'd say both arguments are valid if contradictory.:) (That's GW for ya...I love 'em):D
But I'd say that it's clear that "impassable terrain" has no bearing until the scatter roll and the final position of the unit/model is determined.

[Ulfar]

Yes placing models in the movement phase.

[Shavnir]

They aren't rules for placing models they're rules for moving models.

The rules on pages 13 and 14 respectively specifically refer to the movement of models that are already on the board NOT models entering play from deep striking/reserve etc...


Except the rule on page 14 which specifically refers to placing models. And the language in the deep strike rule that refers to placing models.

[darth_papi76]

According to page 94 all reserves arrive at the start of the movement phase. I assume that would include any units arriving via deep strike.

[pelmen78]

I'm personally leaning to the Mawloc rule being one of those special rules that lets you land in impassable terrain, but only if that impassable terrain consists solely of other models. You could even designate the point as being on top of, or under in this case, other models.

Full disclosure: I'm a tyranid player, and both my Trygons and my Mawloc are currently being painted in the next room.

[webron]

While i have not read the nid book, i just re-read the DS rules from the BRB. I had thought that you could not DS a model onto impassable terrain. however, after reading the rule again, I think that you can place the model anywhere, but if you put a DS unit onto impassable terrain, on a friendly model, or within 1" of an enemy model you roll on the DS mishap table. As i understand the mawloc rule, the attack replaces the mishap table. So you can pop the mawloc underneath an enemy unit. Unless the mawloc rule specifically says otherwise, i think the DS attack would also occur if the mawloc scattered onto friendly models. It is not clear from what i know what would happen if the mawloc scattered onto actual impassable terrain.

is resolved, there are enemy models left on the table that would prevent it from being placed. I don't think you can place a model within 1" of an enemy model except when charging or tank shocking. I am pretty sure the monolith rules cover this, but i have not faced necrons since fourth edition.

[Bean]

What you need to do now, Webron, is read the rule about placing models on page 14. It specifically says that models can't be placed in impassable terrain.

Also, there's a rule on page 13 which says that other models count as impassable terrain.

The relevant restrictions aren't on page 95 with the deepstrike rules, but they are in the core book and they are relevant. You just have to do a little digging to find them.

[Monkey God]

Hello everyone, just found the thread in the universe i was searching for and thanks for all the leads.
Must say it's been a hell of a journey trawling though all the bloody books to finally find the last six words in the impassable terrain rules on page 14 of the basic rulebook. WHAT A RELLIEF! (almost forgot it was a game, and i'm sure one of you is a lawyer :mad:)
Now i can douse all those nutty visualizations of a Mawloc leaving a note with their insurance company under the wiper of a rhino it accidentally scratched... with ... heh... gnashing... blood... munchy... boom boom :D

[Fizyx]

Well, one other distinction is between the Mawloc, Trygon and Mycetic Spore.

Both the Trygon and Spore have rules that say "when they deploy via deep-strike and it scatters on top of impassible terrain, reduce the scatter by the minimum distance required to avoid the obstacle." The Mawloc, however, says "If a Mawloc Deepstrikes onto a point occupied by another model, do not roll on the deep-strike mishap table, but instead do the following."

Common sense tells me, based solely on the language in the Codex entry, that GW intended you to be able to intentionally deep-strike the Mawloc onto locations occupied by enemy models. The distinction it makes between the Mawloc and the other two is especially striking. The language is clear for the Trygon and Spore, you follow normal deep-strike rules and reduce scatter. The Mawloc does not mention scatter, and specifically says "deep-strikes onto a point occupied" which means, to me, you can initiate the deployment in that location.

Furthermore, the arguments regarding the rules for movement (13 and 14) and deep-strike (95) are ambiguous still. There is no clear language that states models must follow the normal movement rules for initiating deployment via deep-strike. So page 13 and 14 are out. Also, saying that you can't place a model on the table because there a model underneath it is silly. I would love to see what would happen if my wife asked me to set the table for dinner and I strip off the tablecloth to follow her "Rules as Written."

The gist of it is this: Before a game with a new opponent I will ask him or her if I can initiate a deep-strike with my Mawloc onto his units. If he or she says yes, I will play the game as normal. If he or she says no, I will switch to a second list that does nto include the Mawloc, because I do not feel like I should need a deep-strike scatter in order to fulfill the purpose of a model, especially a model that has an "ability that allows the Mawloc to hunt its prey even whilst burrowing through the ground. Even the slightest tremor above ground feeds the hunting Mawloc a wealth of information, enabling it to intercept a chosen quarry with frightening speed and unerring accuracy..."

[webron]

Yes, i did review that rule. I think that the mawloc attack would work, but he could not be placed on the table if it would require that the model be placed within 1" of an enemy unit or otherwise in impassable terrain. I have not read the mawloc rule, but based on what has been said i believe that it would occur in this manner:

1. Select Mawloc DS point
2. scatter
3. place template attack
4. resolve attack
5. place mawloc, if possible due to impassable terrian, enemy or friendly models, etc.

Unless the mawloc has a special rule allowing it to deep strike into close combat or some similar mechanic, ie drop pod or monolith, I don't see how it can be placed on the table in violation of the movement rules. But I think the attack will still go off. I guess the basis of my interpretation is that you can DS anywhere on the table as stated on page 95 of the BRB, but if you should end up, whether intentionally or by scatter, on impassable terrain you suffer from the effect of the mishap table. This is the circumstance the mawloc DS attack rule covers. So instead of the mishap table, you resolve the attack. the mawloc still cannot be placed on impassable terrain or otherwise in violation of the movement rules on page 13 of the BRB. I understand the the rule says that a model cannot move onto or into impassable terrain. And it cannot, but i think you can select impassable terrain as a DS entry point. You just have to live with the consequences if your model ends up trying to DS onto impassable terrain. Usually this is covered by the mishap table. In the case of the mawloc, i do not know what happens. But barring some additional rule, it cannot come in on impassable terrain. But it can still use its DS attack on an enemy squad. I suspect if it does not kill enough of the squad then it cannot come in and is therefor lost.

[webron]

I just conferred with a friend who has the nid book. HE says the mawloc attack pushes models out of the way, so it can be placed in the middle of where the template was. This makes sense and still prevents the mawloc from DSing into actual impassable terrain. So i don't see any problem with the mawloc DSing into a enemy squad. That is their clearly stated purpose.

[Fizyx]

I just conferred with a friend who has the nid book. HE says the mawloc attack pushes models out of the way, so it can be placed in the middle of where the template was. This makes sense and still prevents the mawloc from DSing into actual impassable terrain. So i don't see any problem with the mawloc DSing into a enemy squad. That is their clearly stated purpose.

This makes complete sense, but it doesn't change the fact that neither the Tyranid codex nor the BRB have "the Mawloc can intentionally initiate a deep-strike deployment from reserves onto a location occupied by an enemy model" written in the rules, which is apparently what it will take for RAW followers to allow the Mawloc to perform its clearly intended purpose.

[Shavnir]

1. Select Mawloc DS point
2. scatter
3. place template attack
4. resolve attack
5. place mawloc, if possible due to impassable terrian, enemy or friendly models, etc.
.

That's basically what the errata I came up with changes it to do. As written it doesn't function.


Furthermore, the arguments regarding the rules for movement (13 and 14) and deep-strike (95) are ambiguous still. There is no clear language that states models must follow the normal movement rules for initiating deployment via deep-strike.

"You may not place models in impassable terrain"
"First place one model anywhere on the board".

I fail to see how the second one precludes the first. Just like moving a model placing a model has rules and unless you are specifically allowed to override them you must abide by them.

[Caldera02]

Umm, for what other purpose would the Mawloc have a rule that says any model under the template takes a str 6 ap2 hit if not being able to deepstrike into enemy models. Have any of you read the fluff for the mawloc? That's exactly what this monster does, comes from right below enemy models to eat them. Part of his deepstrike rule in the book is to place the blast template right on the models and then scatter, if a hit occurs, move the enemy models and they all take the hit.

This is clear case of codex overwrites BRB. Plain and simple.

[Shavnir]

Umm, for what other purpose would the Mawloc have a rule that says any model under the template takes a str 6 ap2 hit if not being able to deepstrike into enemy models. Have any of you read the fluff for the mawloc? That's exactly what this monster does, comes from right below enemy models to eat them. Part of his deepstrike rule in the book is to place the blast template right on the models and then scatter, if a hit occurs, move the enemy models and they all take the hit.

Fluff isn't rules.


This is clear case of codex overwrites BRB. Plain and simple.

No, this is a clear case of you having read neither. There's nothing in the codex entry that overwrites the BRB rules we are discussing here.

[Fizyx]

Shav, the rules are anything but clear.

Although deep-striking occurs at the beginning of the movement phase, it is concluded before you move any models. Therefore, the deep-striking models are not de facto moving, thereby negating the rules written in the movement section of the book. With those out of the argument, you have page 95 which does not state that you can not place a model on top of another model, but only that it is "on the table." That is even unclear, because even if the model in question is not touching the table, it is still very much on the table.

I am not sure whether you are arguing to make a point (that GW's rules are sometimes ambiguous, which I agree with) or if you really do believe that Mawlocs can not perform their clearly stated mission in the Fluff, but please do not insist that the RAW follows how you read the rules, when there is clearly much ambiguity in many different areas.

Clearly ambiguity? Lol.

My point is, even RAW is very subjective to how you read the rules. So you have RAW, RAI you have RAR (Rules as read.)

[webron]

There is a rule of statutory construction (the interpretation of law) that simply put says that you do not read part of the law in such away that would make another part useless or without effect. My point here is that it is absurd to think that there was the deliberate intention of the writers to have a special rule that cannot be used.

As for the interplay between the DS rules and the movement rules, the DS rules says that a model can be placed anywhere on the board. There is not restriction on what type of terrain, proximity to enemy models or any other limitations on model placement that are in the movement section. In fact the DS rules spell out what happens if you DS into a position which you could not legally move a model. THe mawloc rule changes what happens in that situation.

I'll admit the rules are not clearly written, but if you read them together and are not trying to look for a clever way to disallow something that was clearly the purpose of the rule, than it is clear that the mawloc can DS into an enemy unit.

I do not play nids, I think this attack is very powerful and I am inclined not to like it. But I can't honestly say that I think there is a problem with the rules.

[Crevab]

There is a rule of statutory construction (the interpretation of law) that simply put says that you do not read part of the law in such away that would make another part useless or without effect. My point here is that it is absurd to think that there was the deliberate intention of the writers to have a special rule that cannot be used.


Oh, either way it can be used. The argument is whether it's as effective as you wish it is.

[Bean]

Indeed. Not only are the rules of statutory interpretation utterly irrelevant within this discussion, the BRB rules do not prevent the Mawloc's rule from having any effect or being useful. As Crevab said, the only thing you could really say is that the rules in the BRB prevent it from being quite as useful as you might like, which isn't a very convincing argument at all.

[Shallowain]

I have the tyranid codex and the rulebook right in front of me now (as well as the Large Blast marker and a mawloc, but more of this later)

First, deepstriking does not invalidate the previous rules of the book, so page 13 and 14 are valid since *placement* is actually one of the things which are defined within the book without any ambiguity, so no deepstriking directly onto impassible terrain including other models.

The only thing that allows models to be placed upon each other is in a multi-level ruin.

Now, the rule of the Mawloc works as follows:

1.: Place Model
2.: scatter Model
3.: if model scatters on impassable terrain or of board = mishap
4.: if model scatters within 1" of enemy unit = mishap (no provision to push enemy out of the way)
5.: if model scatters onto open space = place mawloc
6.: if model scatters on another modell place Large Blast marker and resolve hits.
7.: move surviving models away from blast marker, *No 1" distance* just of the marker (keep coherency, keep close combat contact)
8.: resolve Mishap, because the mawloc base is to big to get 1" distance between enemy models pushed of the Blast marker

The rules are quite clear how they work, they just don't work well. To work as people *want* them to work there need to be ammendments.

1.: The rule need to have a provision *allowing* to place the mawloc model on another model (NOT existing right now)
2.: models hit by the blast marker must be moved 1" away or the Mawloc must be allowed to deep strike directly into combat
3.: to reduce silliness let the mawloc either hit the unit(s) or push them aside if he deep strikes within 1" of enemy models.

2 and 3 are something that *needs* to be done for the mawloc to work at all, 1 only, if it is *intended* to deepstrike onto a unit. Fluff covers this, but the rules do NOT.

[Lerra]

I think we all agree that the RAW is broken and/or silly.

Also, we know how the Mawloc is supposed to work. I think it's pretty clear. It'll likely be fixed in the errata, but until then, we can play by the likely future errata, using common sense.

It's likely that Average Joe Tournament Organizer will allow the Mawloc to function like it's supposed to, regardless of how GW screwed up the RAW. Even if GW drops the ball and doesn't issue errata for this, most tournament FAQs will allow you to use the Mawloc as intended.

[Shallowain]

Also, we know how the Mawloc is supposed to work. I think it's pretty clear. It'll likely be fixed in the errata, but until then, we can play by the likely future errata, using common sense..

No we don't. And as long as GW does not change the rule to allow placement of the Blast marker *first* (that would solve most issues) I will neither play that way, nor allow anyone else to "place" a model on another. If anyone tries that he gets smacked with the hardcover rulebook.

The rules as written are actually clear and resolve, they just cause side effects that are unpleasent.

I agree, that they need to be rewritten, but as long as they are not there is right now no supposed common sense as you state it, since your "common sense" right now outright breaks the rules (placement of deepstrikers).

[Caldera02]

Fluff isn't rules.



No, this is a clear case of you having read neither. There's nothing in the codex entry that overwrites the BRB rules we are discussing here.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...obviously, you sir are dead wrong. You have not read the rule for the tyranid codex, for if you had you would note the first part of the description on how to treat the mawloc's ability.

If a mishap should occur because of enemy models, place the Large blast Template and they take a str6 ap2 hit, vehicles are hit on the rear armor and then push the models to the edge of the template. Also the only place in that rule it mentions the 1''in rule is in reference to hitting models in close combat and moving them to where they do not break this rule.

So tell me sir with your obvious knowledge and understanding of this new codex, how can you honestly refute the wording of the rule in the codex? Please tell me so that I may laugh at you.

[Drakkan Vael]

No we don't. And as long as GW does not change the rule to allow placement of the Blast marker *first* (that would solve most issues) I will neither play that way, nor allow anyone else to "place" a model on another. If anyone tries that he gets smacked with the hardcover rulebook.

The rules as written are actually clear and resolve, they just cause side effects that are unpleasent.

I agree, that they need to be rewritten, but as long as they are not there is right now no supposed common sense as you state it, since your "common sense" right now outright breaks the rules (placement of deepstrikers).

A lot of comments like this make me a little sad. Maybe the rulebook says this or that. You all who argue like this have forgotten the most important rule: This is a game. And it is supposed to be fun to play it.

Maybe you should all step backwards and have a look at what you do: playing rules lawyers. Trying to find meaning in single words or in the exact wording of a sentence.

Yes, Fluff might not be rules. And yes, you might not allow anyone to play this way (I'm glad I'll never play against you).
Is the Mawloc overly powerful if he deepstrikes under a unit without having to scatter and without a mishap? Do you really think so?

I don't. And I luckily don't have to play against rules lawyers that do.

Yes, maybe the codex Tyranids is badly written (and in a lot of places I think it could have been better), but do you all really need to fight for single words?

All over BoLS there are rules discussions about how certain things work, are supposed to work or how people think they work.
There is a difference between the words of the law and the spirit of the law. And most of the times the spirit of the law is considered far more important.

This is a game and it is supposed to be fun. May everyone play it according to that rule only.

Thanks

[Fizyx]

Shallow:

Page 95 is as clear as you can get it.

"First, place a model from the unit anywhere on the table."

It doesn't say "except for dangerous terrain." It does not say "following the normal rules for movement or placement." It says "anywhere on the table." Pardon me, but on top of another model is still anywhere on the table.

In any case, Drakkan's comment is spot on. Not only is the most important rule in effect, read the last few words on page 14. Where I am from we have words for people who acknowledge the wording of rules are poor, recognize the true intent and refuse to play that way because they will only play "rules as written."

[Bean]

The most important rule doesn't support your position, here, at all, Drakkan. I, personally, find it less fun to play against people who try to do things which aren't legal. It gets even less fun when, after I point out the illegality of what they're attempting, they come up with irrational 'arguments' in attempt to support their absurd advantage-grubbing.

When you sit down to play a game, there exists, by default, an agreement with your opponent that you will play the game by the rules. Breaking the rules whenever you feel like it, for no better reason than that you want to, doesn't make the game more fun. It makes the game less fun.

The most important rule basically supports the notion that you should play by the rules.

[Shavnir]

Shallow:

Page 95 is as clear as you can get it.

"First, place a model from the unit anywhere on the table."

It doesn't say "except for dangerous terrain." It does not say "following the normal rules for movement or placement." It says "anywhere on the table." Pardon me, but on top of another model is still anywhere on the table.

In any case, Drakkan's comment is spot on. Not only is the most important rule in effect, read the last few words on page 14. Where I am from we have words for people who acknowledge the wording of rules are poor, recognize the true intent and refuse to play that way because they will only play "rules as written."

Except to say "place a model from the unit anywhere on the table including impassable terrain" it would need the "including impassable terrain". On top of another model while still anywhere on the table is clearly not a legal position to place a model.

Also if you'd read the thread you'd of seen the suggested errata I put back on page 2 or 3 or so.

[webron]

I am not at all clear on how the mawloc attack would work, if it cannot deep strike under an enemy unit? From what is being said here, it would seem like it could never actually be used. Or is the assumption that the mawloc would have to scatter onto an enemy model for the attack to be used.

[Ferro]

FWIW, I go with the obvious intent on this one, and to hell with the deepstrike technicalities. Fortunately my LGS feels the same way.

I think the Mawloc arrives the same way Spore Mines arrive on the table... You don't even grab the model; you start off with a 5" blast marker and place it above enemies exactly like you were shooting at them.

Repeat for emphasis: the whole process starts with a blast marker, not the model. You only put the model on the table once enemies have been moved out of the way (or if the blast scatters off into open ground).

I roll scatter for the Mawloc. That stuff about auto-hit/no scatter strikes me as inconsistant with the intent and an accident of the poor verbage. And it is poor, no doubt about it.

So in short, I treat it exactly like it was a shooting attack, even though it's not one. As far as I'm concerned, no cover saves are possible when the ground opens up beneath you and that bush you were hiding behind falls into the abyss. I would allow invulnerable saves if applicable.

This is how I play it, and it's endorsed by my LGS, which is all that matters to me. Just thought I'd share.

[Fizyx]

Except to say "place a model from the unit anywhere on the table including impassable terrain" it would need the "including impassable terrain". On top of another model while still anywhere on the table is clearly not a legal position to place a model.



Man, I was hoping someone would say that.

Basically, even though the rules for deep striking explicitly state you can place a model anywhere on the table, you are inferring from the rule on page 13 that it is not. To add "including impassable terrain" would be a redundancy since the rule already stated "anywhere on the table."

Right now you just said that even though the rules specifically state anywhere on the table, what GW really meant was anywhere on the table that was not impassable terrain because obviously you can't place a model on top of another model. In essence, you are arguing for rules as intended.

Sorry Dude, you can not have it both ways.

For what its worth, I dig your proposed errata and understand what side of the fence you are on, but right now what we need is more logical thinkers and fewer rules lawyers. I understand the need for rules, and I definitely agree that there is a line between what should and should not be acknowledged as RAI, but this is a clear case of common sense and I would really like it for people to just shut up and have fun.

Sorry for this farcical approach, but I hope we can all understand the ridiculousness of the last 80-some-odd posts in this thread.

[Shavnir]

Man, I was hoping someone would say that.

Basically, even though the rules for deep striking explicitly state you can place a model anywhere on the table, you are inferring from the rule on page 13 that it is not. To add "including impassable terrain" would be a redundancy since the rule already stated "anywhere on the table."

Right now you just said that even though the rules specifically state anywhere on the table, what GW really meant was anywhere on the table that was not impassable terrain because obviously you can't place a model on top of another model. In essence, you are arguing for rules as intended.

Sorry Dude, you can not have it both ways.

For what its worth, I dig your proposed errata and understand what side of the fence you are on, but right now what we need is more logical thinkers and fewer rules lawyers. I understand the need for rules, and I definitely agree that there is a line between what should and should not be acknowledged as RAI, but this is a clear case of common sense and I would really like it for people to just shut up and have fun.

Sorry for this farcical approach, but I hope we can all understand the ridiculousness of the last 80-some-odd posts in this thread.

Oh I understand, I just terribly enjoy rules debates is all. Its like a jigsaw puzzle in reverse. ;) Only online though.

Lets take the issue slightly differently. If there was a rule that said you could "move anywhere on the table" it would be logical to assume it still followed normal movement rules would it not? Admittedly this isn't particularly clear in the Deep Strike rule but I see the "anywhere on the table" more defining the maximum dimensions as it were, as opposed to explicitly allowing them to place in impassable terrain.

Either way since the Mawloc doesn't contain a rule that allows it to be placed in impassable terrain on its profile (who even wrote page 14, jeez) the placement rule still works.

[Crevab]

I am not at all clear on how the mawloc attack would work, if it cannot deep strike under an enemy unit? From what is being said here, it would seem like it could never actually be used. Or is the assumption that the mawloc would have to scatter onto an enemy model for the attack to be used.

Yah, that's the debate. When placing the Mawloc on a deepstrike, can you place it on an enemy unit? Or can it only land on a unit via scatter

Speaking of which

If a mishap should occur because of enemy models, place the Large blast Template and they take a str6 ap2 hit, vehicles are hit on the rear armor and then push the models to the edge of the template. Well, checking the Nid book since you paraphrased instead of quoting, the rule tells you what to do in case of a mishap on a model, not " You may deepstrike regardless of Impassable Terrain" whether such a phrase is needed is why we're in this thread. But the rule doesn't say one way or another

[BuFFo]

Sorry for this farcical approach, but I hope we can all understand the ridiculousness of the last 80-some-odd posts in this thread.

I have :)

+1

[Drakkan Vael]

The most important rule doesn't support your position, here, at all, Drakkan. I, personally, find it less fun to play against people who try to do things which aren't legal. It gets even less fun when, after I point out the illegality of what they're attempting, they come up with irrational 'arguments' in attempt to support their absurd advantage-grubbing.

When you sit down to play a game, there exists, by default, an agreement with your opponent that you will play the game by the rules. Breaking the rules whenever you feel like it, for no better reason than that you want to, doesn't make the game more fun. It makes the game less fun.

The most important rule basically supports the notion that you should play by the rules.


The most important "rule" should apply everywhere. And you can play the game however you like, as long as your opponent agrees with you. If not, you can discuss the problem and reach a conclusion or, if that is not possible, simply roll a dice.

The problem is: you might think something as an illegality and find arguments supporting your position. That does not nessessary make you correct. Your opponent could also have good arguments and think he is right.

Yet you claim that you are right and your opponent is not.

Playing by the rules is all good and well and we all certainly attempt to do that but as we know as well, there are a lot of cases not or not fully covered by the rules. How do you solve those problems?
The only thing you can do is try to solve it TOGETHER. Find a solution that fits the spirit of the rules and satisfies both of you.

Regarding the Mawloc we play it the same way Ferro's group does: Taking the large blast template anywhere on the table, roll for scatter, remove caualties, clear the space below and then place the Mawloc in the space thus created.

[j78]

our group is playing the "lay the template first" as well. i think it's pretty clear from reading the design article, the web article, and the way the rule is worded compared with the Tygron and Spore Pod rules in the same codex, that is what is meant to occur. I understand that i'm speculating as to intent, but the alternative makes little sense.

[Bean]

The most important "rule" should apply everywhere. And you can play the game however you like, as long as your opponent agrees with you. If not, you can discuss the problem and reach a conclusion or, if that is not possible, simply roll a dice.


I didn't say it didn't apply, I actually said that it did apply, and that, since violating a basic and justified expectation of one player generally reduces the amount of fun that player has, the most important rule basically supports my position on this.



The problem is: you might think something as an illegality and find arguments supporting your position. That does not nessessary make you correct. Your opponent could also have good arguments and think he is right.

Yet you claim that you are right and your opponent is not.


This isn't true at all. When this first came up, I thought the Mawloc could be placed on top of enemy models. Then I actually read the rules, and realized I was wrong. My argumentation has been nothing more than quoting those rules which demonstrate why I was wrong.

I never form an opinion about the rules of the game and then work to support it. I only argue in favor of a particular position after I'm convinced that the rules support it, and I always alter my position when I become convinced it's wrong. Your assertion to the contrary is insulting, unjustified, and flatly incorrect.

I am right. My opponent, should he claim that the rules allow him to intentionally deepstrike his Mawloc on top of my models, would be wrong. This is not because I say I am right, but because the rules say, quite clearly, that I am right.




Playing by the rules is all good and well and we all certainly attempt to do that but as we know as well, there are a lot of cases not or not fully covered by the rules. How do you solve those problems?

The only thing you can do is try to solve it TOGETHER. Find a solution that fits the spirit of the rules and satisfies both of you.


There are a few, but I find that they're almost always dealt with by an extant convention--by which I mean that the way people actually play prevents them from coming up at all. And, if the rules really aren't clear, this sort of thing doesn't generally bother me.

If something does come up, I will generally see what I remember about the rules and what my opponent remembers. If our memories generally line up and we come to the same conclusion, we go with that, whether it's right or not, for the sake of efficiency.

If our memories of the rules or the conclusions we draw from those rules don't line up, I'll look up the actual rules. In the vast, vast majority of situations, the rules do actually give a clear and functional answer (I find that what most people mean when they say that a particular case is not covered by the rules is that they don't like the conclusion that the rules generate--this is really never a good argument). If I think that the rules are clear, I will generally insist that we play by those rules.

If I think that the rules are not clear, I will try to come to an agreement with my opponent or roll a die.

If I think that the rules are clear, and my opponent either thinks that they or not or has come to an interpretation which I feel is wrong, I will usually engage in discussion, attempting to convince my opponent that I am right and giving my opponent the opportunity to convince me that he or she is right in return. This usually leads to a resolution. When it does not, I will sometimes agree to roll a die. I'm leery of the die mechanism in this instance, though, because if you resort to it by default in a situation like that, you're basically willing to let your opponent cheat in whatever way he or she wants (half of the time). That's not the way the game should be played.




Regarding the Mawloc we play it the same way Ferro's group does: Taking the large blast template anywhere on the table, roll for scatter, remove caualties, clear the space below and then place the Mawloc in the space thus created.

And it's perfectly reasonable to implement this house rule. It is not reasonable to assert publicly that your house rule is the way the rules actually work. It is not, and the fact that you play it that way doesn't change what the rules actually are. If that's what makes you guys happy, then it's perfectly fine with everyone for you play that way, but asserting that others should play that way, too, or that, somehow, playing that way ought to make the game more fun for everyone, is just ignorant.

[HsojVvad]

Sorry for this farcical approach, but I hope we can all understand the ridiculousness of the last 80-some-odd posts in this thread.

Acctually it's good to have 80 some pages here online. This way we hash it out here for however long it takes, but say if we ever did meet and played a game, it would take 2 minutes, and then roll it one way or the other.

2 minutes and dice off and more playing time in real life meeting, take how ever long online so we can debate it. Nothing wrong having more than 80 posts since we are not taking any time away from gaming.

[j78]

And it's perfectly reasonable to implement this house rule. It is not reasonable to assert publicly that your house rule is the way the rules actually work. It is not, and the fact that you play it that way doesn't change what the rules actually are. If that's what makes you guys happy, then it's perfectly fine with everyone for you play that way, but asserting that others should play that way, too, or that, somehow, playing that way ought to make the game more fun for everyone, is just ignorant.

doesn't the fact that there are hundreds of posts on this site and others indicate that no one is in agreement as to "what the rules actually are". if that's the case, the declaration of how people are going to play it isn't a "house rule", it's how things are being interpreted by that group of people. more of a "house interpretation." There are too many people with competing readings and understandings of how it should work to come up with a definitive answer. You claim that others are ignorant by assuming you should follow their interpretation, but your interpretation is just your own house rule, so why should yours be given more credence?

[Bean]

The fact that a bunch of people have come to an "understanding" which isn't supported by the actual rules in any way doesn't mean that the rules are unclear. They are. What we have here is nothing more than a bunch of people shutting their eyes and sticking their fingers in their ears to ignore the truth for as long as possible.

That's fine. How they play the game is their business. It doesn't mean that the issue is actually confused. The rules are perfectly clear on this one, and no amount of irrational contention can change that.

The difference between my interpretation and theirs is that the rules support mine and they don't support theirs. That makes my position the actual rules, and their positions house rules. I have no obligation to refrain from making that claim and no obligation to give their positions any credence or credibility at all--even if some of them are actually deluded enough to think that the rules actually support them.

Also, how it "should" work isn't relevant, unless you're talking about coming up with house rules. How it *does* work is all that matters for a discussion like this.

[webron]

I come to this site because I enjoy thinking about and discussing the rules to this game. At the end of the day, everything comes down to interpretation. As usual, both sides have reasonable points. I was in the "you can't deep strike onto enemy models" camp when i first read this thread, but i read the points here and re-read the rules and my mind was changed. I really don't think I could convince myself now that the rules should go the other way, but i will admit there is a certain amount of ambiguity. I for one, like to hear how others are interpreting the rules and the solutions other come up with when dealing with ambiguous rules. I have never felt that someone was trying to impose their interpretation of the rules on me.

Besides, if i did not spend my time reading these post and arguing about the rules, I would have to deal with actual problems. This is much more pleasant

[j78]

Also, how it "should" work isn't relevant, unless you're talking about coming up with house rules. How it *does* work is all that matters for a discussion like this.


I don't agree with you as to how it "does" work. the page 14 rule that people keep referring back to, states that you can't place a model into impassible terrain unless it has a special rule granting an exception (which I believe the language of the mawloc does, that's why it says if you deep strike onto a model) or both players agree to it. so i read the language of the mawloc rule granting an exception, for some reason you don't.

then there is the next line "if both players agree". why would both players have to agree on a rule that you are so convinced is clear. both players can agree, according to the rulebook, to place the model in impassible terrain. so I, like others before me, have declared in advance that we are going to follow the rule on page 14, and agree to place the model in impassible terrain. again, i don't think you need to go that far, because i think the mawloc has an exception, but beyond that you can still agree to place the model in impassible terrain according to the rulebook. and I think because of the language in the mawloc special rule and the description of the attack, people who refuse to agree to this, are being unsportsmanlike. or ungamesmanlike.

[Bean]

I don't agree with you as to how it "does" work. the page 14 rule that people keep referring back to, states that you can't place a model into impassible terrain unless it has a special rule granting an exception (which I believe the language of the mawloc does, that's why it says if you deep strike onto a model) or both players agree to it. so i read the language of the mawloc rule granting an exception, for some reason you don't.


Where in the Mawloc's rules is such an exception granted? Quote the rule, if it's really there. So far, no-one has.



then there is the next line "if both players agree". why would both players have to agree on a rule that you are so convinced is clear.

They wouldn't. They would have to agree to obviate that perfectly clear rule. Frankly, though, this last line is irrelevant. Players can always agree to obviate any rule they don't want to follow. That's just a given. You could put this line at the end of every rule in the book and it wouldn't change a thing.



both players can agree, according to the rulebook, to place the model in impassible terrain. so I, like others before me, have declared in advance that we are going to follow the rule on page 14, and agree to place the model in impassible terrain.

Sure, and that is perfectly fine--but it amounts to a house rule. Nothing more and nothing less. It's exactly the same as if you'd agreed in advance to ignore any other rule in the book. There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't mean you're following the rules. It means, explicitly, that you're agreeing to not follow the rules.


again, i don't think you need to go that far, because i think the mawloc has an exception, but beyond that you can still agree to place the model in impassible terrain according to the rulebook. and I think because of the language in the mawloc special rule and the description of the attack, people who refuse to agree to this, are being unsportsmanlike. or ungamesmanlike.

It is unsportsmanlike to demand or expect of your opponent that he agree to allow you to break the rules for your own advantage. It is not unsportsmanlike to request that your opponent play by the rules. Your assertion to the contrary is obviously absurd.

[j78]

I can't quote the rule, because i don't have book with me here, so this is by memory here. The first line of the rule, I believe says "if you deep strike onto a model". That is good enough for me to deep strike onto a model, an exception to when you are allowed to place a model onto impassible terriain.

as for the part about players agreeing, it's true they could have put that line after everything, but they didn't. because clarifying terrain, what is impassible, and what you can place models on, is something that is in flux from table to table, depending on scenery, and can't be quantified without seeing what it looks like. Unlike needing to roll a certain number based on a models profile, these are things that need to be hashed out by players before the game starts.

maybe unsportsmanlike is the wrong word, but you keep saying "break the rule" as if the rule is clear, which I don't believe.

so then I would ask, when would you agree with another player to place models in impassible terrain? never? and that's fine, I'm just asking.

second, because the rule on page 14, that seems to be causing the problem, has a line that states "unless players agree" does that mean that when attempting to deepstrike the mawloc onto another model the end result will always be a dice off? because that is the default solution when players don't agree. so, as a player, would you just be prepared to roll off on the issue every time you played a tyranid player?

[Bean]

I can't quote the rule, because i don't have book with me here, so this is by memory here. The first line of the rule, I believe says "if you deep strike onto a model". That is good enough for me to deep strike onto a model, an exception to when you are allowed to place a model onto impassible terriain.


I don't think the existence of an if/then statement is sufficient to give you permission to break a rule in order to ensure the "if" part.



as for the part about players agreeing, it's true they could have put that line after everything, but they didn't. because clarifying terrain, what is impassible, and what you can place models on, is something that is in flux from table to table, depending on scenery, and can't be quantified without seeing what it looks like. Unlike needing to roll a certain number based on a models profile, these are things that need to be hashed out by players before the game starts.


And I think that's probably why it's there--because the specifics of an actual terrain feature sometimes have to be hashed out by the players ahead of time. Note that this only applies to an actual terrain feature--not models, which, though they count as impassable terrain to other models, are not terrain features and do not have any of the properties which force us to hash out the rules for some terrain features ahead of time.



maybe unsportsmanlike is the wrong word, but you keep saying "break the rule" as if the rule is clear, which I don't believe.


Sure. But I do. It's appropriate for my posts to reflect that.


so then I would ask, when would you agree with another player to place models in impassible terrain? never? and that's fine, I'm just asking.

I don't think it's ever happened. In general, I don't think models should go into impassable terrain, because being in impassable terrain means you can't move, can't be assaulted, etc. It just doesn't function.

I can't really imagine a situation in which it would be appropriate and not game-breaking, but I will agree that it could occur. I don't think it ever will ever occur when the "impassable terrain" in question is other models, though, and that's all that really matters for this discussion.



second, because the rule on page 14, that seems to be causing the problem, has a line that states "unless players agree" does that mean that when attempting to deepstrike the mawloc onto another model the end result will always be a dice off? because that is the default solution when players don't agree. so, as a player, would you just be prepared to roll off on the issue every time you played a tyranid player?

This just illustrates why the dice-off is a bad resolution mechanism. Sure, the tyranid player could deepstrike on top of my models and then ask to dice off. I could just as easily say that I win the game and ask to dice off--and my request would be exactly as legitimate as his. What, you don't think I win the game just because I say so? Looks like we disagree. Better dice off!

Dicing off is stupid as a default, go-to solution for rules issues. It basically lets anyone cheat in any way they want as long as they get lucky on a die roll, and that's just stupid. There has to be some legitimate grounds for disagreement, and in this case, the Tyranid player has no such grounds.

I'm basically not prepared to allow anyone to die off for whatever crazy rules "interpretation" pops into their heads. The rules don't even call for dicing off as a resolution mechanism. It's not the "default solution" according to the rules. The rules merely note that it is a mechanism some players use. I'm not obligated to give my opponent a 50/50 chance at being allowed to cheat, and will generally refuse to do so.

[j78]

(i'm not quoting your posts only because i can't figure out how to do piecemeal quotes, i probably could figure it out, but that would waste even more time)

fair enough on the dice off point, it's a poor solution most of the time, and I don't like it.

first, because i came into the discussion late, it's probably better for me to clarify, I don't believe page 14 has an impact at all. I read the section to be discussing how models move through terrain, and I believe deepstrike is a special rule not governed by the rules for moving models. I think the language in the deepstrike rule that says "anywhere" is controlling, and that when the scatter roll is finished you look to see where the unit is deployed, and then check for mishaps. because the mawloc has a seperate rule that changes what happens if it hits a model, you follow the special rule.

earlier, you pointed to page 14 as controlling, specifically prohibiting placing models in impassible terrain. as i said above, i don't think it's controlling, but even if i were to agree with you, the language in impassible terrain provides for an exception. for starters deep striking itself is an exception, that allows you to place the model anywhere. if, after the scatter, the unit is in difficult terrain, there's a mishap. second, the mawloc (again, don't have the book with me so i'm not sure i'm quoting correct) says "if you deepstrike onto a model, do this". I read that as permissive, telling me what happens if i deepstrike onto a model. I think that if i were to deepstrike another unit without the special rule onto a model, something else would happen, the mishap table.

that's how i read it, and i don't think there's anything about what i said that is clearly wrong. you seem to give more weight to other words, and believe that rules in another section of the book control a special rule. i can see where you're coming from with your argument, I just think it's incorrect.

[Fizyx]

Unfortunately, Bean, it is not so clear cut.

Page 14 states a model can not be placed into impassable terrain, to include other models.

Page 95 states a model can be placed anywhere on the table.

Right there you have a contradiction. To assume the Page 14 rule is an exception of the Page 95 rule is to assume that is what the designers intended. To assume the Page 95 rule is the exception is the same thing. The rules contradict themselves, and all you can do is infer a proper solution until the impending errata/FAQ arrives.

To say that you are right in this circumstance is asinine. You say it is unsportsmanlike to insist on a RAI definition of the Mawloc's special ability, but you are doing that as well. At this point we all are.

Whether we allow someone to intentionally deep-strike onto an opposing model or not, we are making a RAI judgement. At this point the ONLY fair thing to do is to discuss it before a game, like every person here has suggested. A two-minute discussion should be sufficient for the Tyranid player to explain the situation, show the contradiction in the rules and explain what he feels the intended rule should be.

Please, we are having a nice, whimsical discussion about what should really be an obvious topic. Please don't spoil the fun by having an obstinate viewpoint about what is only your opinion of the rules.

[j78]

and i keep writing difficult instead of impassible, sorry

[Bean]

There are lots of all-inclusive wordings in the rules, and basically none of them are immune to further restriction by other rules.

Take the rules for assaulting through cover: "if an assaulting unit had to take a difficult or dangerous terrain test during their assault phase, all of its models have their Initiative value lowered to 1 when attacking."

Look at that. all of them have their initiatives reduced to one!

And, look! There's a rule for assault grenades which specifically contradicts this rule by saying that some models don't have their initiatives reduced to one. Contradiction within the rules! I guess if I were to say that models with assault grenades had their initiatives reduced to one, that would be a valid interpretation, because, after all, that one particular rule uses all-inclusive language and doesn't offer a specific exception. According to your reasoning, my position would be just as justified as the other!

Of course, your reasoning is inane. The rules don't function in that way. More specific rules override more general ones. If one rule says that such and such happens to all models and another rule says that such and such doesn't happen to a particular category of models, the latter rule overrides the first for that category of models.

If one rule says I can place a model anywhere and another rule tells me there are some specific places where models can't be placed, the second rule overrides the first for those specific places.

That is the way the rules work. If they didn't work that way, the game wouldn't work at all. That is why your reasoning is flawed, and that is why your position is wrong.

My opinion on the rules is correct. Others are not. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's my opinion, and everything to do with the fact that the rules are clear on this issue, and they clearly support my opinion and fail to support those others. You can go on all you like about how the rule is ambiguous, or how I should respect the opinions of others, but it's all nonsense as long as the rule is not actually ambiguous (it's not) and the opinions of others are inane (they are). Opinions which are held long after they've been shown to be false do not deserve respect.

[Extinction Angel]

Unfortunately, Bean, it is not so clear cut.
...

To assume the Page 14 rule is an exception of the Page 95 rule is to assume that is what the designers intended. To assume the Page 95 rule is the exception is the same thing.

...


Thank you...

Man, I'm glad this is on the last page. I face-palmed so many times in the first three I got a headache and had to zoom to the last one.

[Fizyx]

No, common sense tells you that the special rule for assault grenades over-rides the geneeral rule for assaulting into cover. By that logic, the special rule for deep-strike over-rides the general rule for movement and placement.

You say that
If one rule says I can place a model anywhere and another rule tells me there are some specific places where models can't be placed, the second rule overrides the first for those specific places.

Well, I say that If one rule says there are specific places I can not place models, and a second rule states there is a special circumstance that allows me to place the model anywhere, the second rule overrides the first for that specific circumstance. That is my opinion, clearly substantiated by the very same logic that substantiates your opinion.

In these circumstances we have three options. One of which is to calmly discuss it using common sense logic, another is to steadfastly stand by your opinion, whatever it is, which is most definitely NOT substantiated by the rules. The last is to completely ignore the problem altogether and not play with the problem rules/models until an official errata is in place.

[Bean]

Well, I say that If one rule says there are specific places I can not place models, and a second rule states there is a special circumstance that allows me to place the model anywhere, the second rule overrides the first for that specific circumstance. That is my opinion, clearly substantiated by the very same logic that substantiates your opinion.

And I disagree. I think the hierarchy of generalization, in this instance, clearly goes the other way, meaning that my reasoning does not substantiate your position.

You can try to apply common sense all you want, but the only thing that can really be said about common sense is that it isn't actually common to everyone. Basing your position on common sense carries about as much weight as basing it on astrology--i.e. none at all.

[gcsmith]

actually the mawloc rules state the model is placed after the template (after all casulties have been removed replace the large template with the mawloc) Ie the template is used as a scatter and that it hurts enemies instead of the dangerous deepstrike?

[Bean]

The Mawloc rules don't say that the Mawloc doesn't get placed beforehand.

They also don't say that the Template is used for the Mawlock's scatter.

In fact, you don't place the template at all unless the Mawlock lands on top of other models. So, if you didn't place the Mawloc first, you would never get the template at all.

So, again, you're just obviously wrong. Did you even read the rule?

[Fizyx]

actually the mawloc rules state the model is placed after the template (after all casulties have been removed replace the large template with the mawloc) Ie the template is used as a scatter and that it hurts enemies instead of the dangerous deepstrike?

Actually, the rules state it follows the normal deep-strike rules and IF it scatters on top of a model, place a large blast template instead. The problem is if you follow RAW you have to place the Mawloc on the table to mark the intended DS location. It is an obvious oversight, some people just get too RAW intensive.

Me, I'm just having fun. I'm an antagonist by nature and I love playing Devil's advocate.

[Fizyx]

And I disagree. I think the hierarchy of generalization, in this instance, clearly goes the other way, meaning that my reasoning does not substantiate your position.

You can try to apply common sense all you want, but the only thing that can really be said about common sense is that it isn't actually common to everyone. Basing your position on common sense carries about as much weight as basing it on astrology--i.e. none at all.

And now you are contradicting yourself. You berate me for using common sense, when you are applying your own to facilitate your opinion. Since you contradict yourself, we're going to have to wait for GW to errata your logic before we can take you seriously. ;)

[Bean]

Not at all. As you said yourself, I'm apply my sense--not common sense. The two are obviously not the same.

Please don't accuse me of contradicting myself unless I actually do so. It just makes you look stupid. ;)

[Fizyx]

If your sense was uncommon, it would be in green text.

[Bean]

That...doesn't even make sense. I'm pretty sure the forum doesn't have an "is this common" filter which automatically applies text colors. =P

[Fizyx]

Sorry, in most modern RPG's the color heirarchy for item quality is

[common]
[uncommon]
[rare]
[epic]

I've been playing WoW way too much.

[Bean]

Ah, fair enough. That's actually a pretty good joke. Sorry I didn't catch it.

[Drakkan Vael]

My opinion on the rules is correct. Others are not. This has nothing to do with the fact that it's my opinion, and everything to do with the fact that the rules are clear on this issue, and they clearly support my opinion and fail to support those others. You can go on all you like about how the rule is ambiguous, or how I should respect the opinions of others, but it's all nonsense as long as the rule is not actually ambiguous (it's not) and the opinions of others are inane (they are). Opinions which are held long after they've been shown to be false do not deserve respect.

After reading this I laughed so hard that I nearly spilled my coke over my keyboard. :eek:
Yeah you ar right and we are alle wrong because you are the only person who can interpret - no pardon me - read the rules correctly.

At least you have no problem with your ego.

Gratz to that if to nothing else.

Why not let all of us play how we like to? Ever tried that.

Sorry, couldn't stop my sarcasm.

[Bean]

I never said you can't play the game how you want to play it. In fact, I said specifically that I think it's fine for people to play the game however they want, as long as their opponents agree.

What I'm trying to get across is that it's not okay to publicly assert something which is false: i.e that the rules actually allow for what you want to do. You can play it however you want. But if you get on a forum and say, "such and such can do such and such legally," and it's not true, don't expect everyone to stand by and nod. That sort of crap deserves to be called out for what it is, and that's all I'm doing, here.


Next time, why don't you try to respond to something I actually said instead of stuff you just imagined me saying?

[j78]

green.....sigh.

well, I think bean's heirarchy of generalization is the correct method, but he's applying it wrong. You should read deep strike as the exception to the general rule about model placement.

hopefully this will be cleared up at space wolf speed.

now, i'm going to get my mawloc ready to deepstrike onto some guardsmen.

[sebi81]

i really don´t get the point in this discussion...

if a space marine player would decide he wants to deepstrike his terminators on top of your troops, would you really say: no, you can´t do this, because you aren´t allowed to place models in impassable terrain? no you wouldn´t because you know if the terminators don´t scatter, they mishap, which can be only good for you.

now there is the mawloc and he gets an advantage when deepstriking on the enemy. and now you say this can´t be done, because he can´t be placed? i don´t get it. the models, that don´t die, are moved away. so there is no impassable terrain any longer. i really can´t see any problem. and the attack at deepstriking is clearly the idea of the rule, so it is totally without any sense to say this can´t be done according a rule which has nothing to do with deepstriking.

i don´t play tyranids, but i would allow the mawloc to deepstrike on my troops the same way i would allow the terminators to deepstrike on my troops (or in impassable terrain in general if they like to)

[Bean]

Out of curiosity, how many rules call for you to place models? Deepstrike is the only one I can think of. Anyone got anything else?


Also, to sebi81, I have never encountered a situation in which a marine player wanted to deepstrike terminators on top of enemy models. And no, I probably wouldn't have called him on it, because, up until this discussion, I wasn't aware that it was illegal. Now I am, and I would call him on it for that reason.

Whether or not there's advantage in it isn't really relevant to what the rules actually say.

[j78]

will be back, you put the models up and place them in cohera...crap i can't spell

[Bean]

Good to know. Got any more?

[j78]

marbo...

[j78]

that's two, you should be able to make whatever the point is right?

[Bean]

I'm not sure there's a point to be made. I still think that the rules for deepstrike involve some general instructions (place the model anywhere) and that the rule on page 14 involves more specific instructions (don't place models in impassable terrain) and that that is sufficient.

I'm just curious about how often it's going to come up.

I guess if there were a point, we'd want to see whether Deepstriking or Placing was a more commonly used rule. Your assertion basically rests on the notion that Deepstriking is less general than placing. If, in fact, Deepstrike comes up more often than placing, that notion would seem incorrect.

So, there's that, I guess. Can you come up with more rules that involve placing than units that Deepstrike?

edit:

And, before you say it, my assertion does not rest on the reverse. Rather, I am asserting that "anywhere on the table" is more general than "in impassable terrain." That's a separate issue entirely, I maintain that it is the important issue, and it is an issue on which I am clearly correct.

[webron]

Yarrick, tank cammander chronus, a bunch of others just use the DS rules such as Infinity gate

[j78]

well i think you're mistaken in that the act of "placing" comes up every single game when you deploy a model. pg 14 is talking about movement as well, so when ever you finish moving you are essentially "placing" the model back on the table, a set number of inches from where it started. I would say placing occurs everytime a model is moved or deployed. so the exception to that general rule is the special rule, deep strike. and in the special rule the "placing" that is the sticking point (on top of another model) has a specific result, either mishap table, or special rule (in our case, a blast template).

[j78]

to finish, the "anywhere" in the deepstrike is an exception to the general rule of model placement.

when you deepstrike, you are excepted from the general rule, and allowed to place a model anywhere. but there will be consequences, depending on what rules the model has.

[webron]

I really don't see how the rules covering movement can be considered more a specific rule than the rule covering deep striking. Especially considering the deep striking rules cover what happens if you deep strike into impassable terrain. Maybe i am just misled by the fact the the movement rules are in the front of the book with its own title, while the deep strike rule is in a section titled "mission special rules"

[Bean]

Again, the issue isn't whether the Movement rules are more or less specific than the Deepstrike rules. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that either is more specific than the other.

The issue is whether a rule which says, "place the model anywhere on the table" is more specific than the rule which says, "don't place the model in impassable terrain." The one gives you a general area (anywhere on the table) and the other offers a specific restriction on certain portions of that area (not in impassable terrain). The latter is clearly more specific and the former clearly more general.

Framing it as Movement rules vs. Deepstriking rules is either missing the point entirely or intentionally obfuscating the issue.

[sebi81]

i made my opinion clear, never saw a problem, don´t see the problem now.

but to give you an example why placing a model is more general than deepstriking: every time you deploy a model at the start of a game you place it. all models are placed that way. only the ones that arrive from reserves are moved on the table without being placed that way.

and in my opinion there is still no problem. you can´t place a model in impassable terrain. but when you deepstrike you don´t really place the model in the way page 14 means. when you scatter in impassaple terrain, you don´t place the model, you mishap. so the rules don´t interfere. in the end the model isn´t placed in impassable terrain even if you aim your deepstrike into it.

[Bean]

That's a good example, Sebi, but, again, it's really just missing the point entirely.

Further, asserting that you don't place the model in the way that page 14 means is silly. What makes you think there's a difference? What difference do you think there is?

[j78]

Again, the issue isn't whether the Movement rules are more or less specific than the Deepstrike rules. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that either is more specific than the other.

The issue is whether a rule which says, "place the model anywhere on the table" is more specific than the rule which says, "don't place the model in impassable terrain." The one gives you a general area (anywhere on the table) and the other offers a specific restriction on certain portions of that area (not in impassable terrain). The latter is clearly more specific and the former clearly more general.

Framing it as Movement rules vs. Deepstriking rules is either missing the point entirely or intentionally obfuscating the issue.

but deepstiking is the special rule we're talking about. it's clearing a special rule, it has it's own section, and the only models that can do it are models that can deepstrike. the rules on pg14 are general rules about movement, that happen to include language about placing models. anything having to do with deepstriking, is a more specific circumstance than the general act of moving models or deploying them.

you are picking one word, "anywhere", out of the deepstrike rule, and putting all your emphasis on it. deepstrike is a specific circumstance where you get to do something different than the general rule, and if the result from that specific action is something that would violate the general rule (having one model placed on top of another one) then there are special rules to cover that (either a mishap table, or pushing the other model away, or in this case, a large blast template to fry people).

[webron]

I think that the intention of the rule is crystal clear. The only problem is that enemy models count as difficult terrain. the mawloc ability pushes them out of the way, so problem solved.

as for the general versus specific issue: the terrian rules are a general rule, the fact that the rule limits where a unit can be placed during movement does not make it more specific then the rule for deep striking, which only applies to certain models and must be used in conjucture with the reserves rule (or a rule that allows them to get around it.) Because the deep strike rule allows you to put a unit anywhere on the board does not make it more general.

The issue is that you are apply movement rules to the deep striking rule. The deep striking rule does not say anything about restrictions on the placement of a model. it does say what happens if you end up on impassable terrain. To me that says you can deep strike into impassable terrain. the mawloc rules modify that, so when it deep strikes into impassable terrain, its attack goes off. If after that attack it is still in difficult terrain, then it has a problem. But if the models are moved, then it can go on the board.

[sebi81]

the deepstriking model is just a aim not a real placement. it is "placed" anywhere on the table. and after that it scatters. the real placement of the model happens after that scatter. its just the same word, not the same rule. its not the technical "place" meant on page 14. its means only "put it anywhere on the table". clear enough for me it´s meant that way.

nothing more to say, i don´t see a problem.

[BuFFo]

Webron, you are 100% correct.

When you Deep Strike, you Deep Strike. You follow the rules for Deep Strike. The only rules that can override Deep Strike are basic rules which flat out state they do (which I don't think there are any) and Codex rules.

You can Deep Strike anywhere on the table. You can even deep strike in a spot occupied by another model, as this is anywhere on the table. Which means you have to push the opposing model out of the way.

Anywhere on the table means exactly that. :D


the deepstriking model is just a aim not a real placement. it is "placed" anywhere on the table. and after that it scatters. the real placement of the model happens after that scatter. its just the same word, not the same rule. its not the technical "place" meant on page 14. its means only "put it anywhere on the table". clear enough for me it´s meant that way.

nothing more to say, i don´t see a problem.

I agree with you 100%. This is how I play it, and everyone else in my local gaming store that I have seen.

I play the initial model as just a marker, as it is not in play yet. But if people want it to actually be on the table as a model itself, it will push enemy models out of the way.

[j78]

The issue is that you are apply movement rules to the deep striking rule.

i agree completely. deepstrike has it's own set of rules for governing the situation. i don't even thing p14 should come into play. but if people insist on bringing it up, i think they should read the part about "exceptions" and realize deep strike is an exception to the general rules.

maybe bean needs to find more people to agree with him (or her). not that more makes right, but maybe he's (she) is not articulating the point well enough for the rest of us to see.

[BuFFo]

i agree completely. deepstrike has it's own set of rules for governing the situation. i don't even thing p14 should come into play. but if people insist on bringing it up, i think they should read the part about "exceptions" and realize deep strike is an exception to the general rules.

maybe bean needs to find more people to agree with him (or her). not that more makes right, but maybe he's (she) is not articulating the point well enough for the rest of us to see.

This thread is a post count outlet for the newer posters, like Bean and that other 'wrong' poster.

+1

[Bean]

you are picking one word, "anywhere", out of the deepstrike rule, and putting all your emphasis on it.


I didn't pick it out. You guys did. The word "anywhere" is the only portion of the deepstrike rules which supports your position at all. Sideline it and you have nothing. All I'm doing is pointing out that this lynchpin term is a general one, and, as such, is overridden by the more specific rule on page 14.

All you're doing is avoiding the issue. Not one bit of the rest of your post is relevant at all. Most of it isn't even true.

[webron]

I think if we followed bean's logic, you could never deep strike because if you put one model on the table out of a squad then that squad would not be in coherency, so it is illegal.

[Bean]

I think that the intention of the rule is crystal clear. The only problem is that enemy models count as difficult terrain. the mawloc ability pushes them out of the way, so problem solved.

I disagree. While I think you're probably right, asserting that the intention is clear is just silly. It could have just as easily been their intention to protect it from certain types of mishaps (as they did with the Trygon) but do so on a more unique and interesting way. They may have never considered the notion that people would try to illegally place the model at all, and they certainly haven't written anything which indicates conclusively that they did.




as for the general versus specific issue: the terrian rules are a general rule, the fact that the rule limits where a unit can be placed during movement does not make it more specific then the rule for deep striking, which only applies to certain models and must be used in conjucture with the reserves rule (or a rule that allows them to get around it.) Because the deep strike rule allows you to put a unit anywhere on the board does not make it more general.


Again, comparing the movement rules, or terrain rules, or any other set of general rules to the general rules for deepstriking is missing the point entirely.

The area discussed in the deepstrike rule is a general one. This inclusiveness is the only thing supporting your position at all. The rule on page 14 is a specific restriction which picks out a specific portion of that general area and tells you that you can't place models within it. That's the general vs. specific comparison that's relevant, here.

Comparing the movement or terrain rules to the deepstrike rules doesn't do anything worthwhile.



The issue is that you are apply movement rules to the deep striking rule. The deep striking rule does not say anything about restrictions on the placement of a model. it does say what happens if you end up on impassable terrain. To me that says you can deep strike into impassable terrain. the mawloc rules modify that, so when it deep strikes into impassable terrain, its attack goes off. If after that attack it is still in difficult terrain, then it has a problem. But if the models are moved, then it can go on the board.


No, I'm applying a rule which specifically prohibits you from placing a model in a particular area to a rule which tells you that you can place a a model anywhere. That's an appropriate application of one rule to another.

[j78]

now you're not making sense, what issue is being avoided. the whole topic is about one issue, it's the only issue being discussed. you made a claim about specific overriding general, then said that the word "anywhere" was general, and p14 had specific restrictions, which should trump.

everyone else that then followed explained your logic is flawed, p14 is general, and deepstrike in itself is a specific, which is why you can deep strike onto a model.

[j78]

I think if we followed bean's logic, you could never deep strike because if you put one model on the table out of a squad then that squad would not be in coherency, so it is illegal.

that's right. taking it further, you can't even move, because as soon as you place the first model 6" away, you've violated the coherency.

why am i still reading this...

[Bean]

I think if we followed bean's logic, you could never deep strike because if you put one model on the table out of a squad then that squad would not be in coherency, so it is illegal.

Again, this is just flatly false. The rules for moving state that "once a unit has finished moving" it must be in coherency. Placing the first model in the unit does not, in any way, equate to the unit finishing its movement. There is no rule which requires a unit to be in coherency at all times.

Your logic is inane, and the objection you based on that logic is worthless. Try actually reading the rules, next time.


And thank you, j78, for demonstrating that you also make assertions without bothering to read the relevant rules. I guess everyone can safely discount your opinion on rules issues. It actually helps me a lot when my opponents demonstrate that they have no intellectual integrity.

Ah, j78 exceeds my expectations and gets a pass on this one. Good work. (this time =P)

[j78]

that's right. taking it further, you can't even move, because as soon as you place the first model 6" away, you've violated the coherency.

why am i still reading this...

darnit...end of movement. nm

[j78]

to be fair, i did realize it before you corrected him, i just hit enter to fast

[Bean]

now you're not making sense, what issue is being avoided. the whole topic is about one issue, it's the only issue being discussed. you made a claim about specific overriding general, then said that the word "anywhere" was general, and p14 had specific restrictions, which should trump.

Yes I did. Since that has nothing to do with whether movement rules or deepstrike rules are more specific, that basically means that you're avoiding the issue.



everyone else that then followed explained your logic is flawed, p14 is general, and deepstrike in itself is a specific, which is why you can deep strike onto a model.

Except that this isn't really true. The rule on page 14 is no more general or specific than the rule for deepstrike in general.

"In impassable terrain" is clearly more specific than "anywhere on the table." This is true because anywhere on the table is an area which includes any impassable terrain on the table.

What do you have to support the notion that the rule on page 14 is less specific than the rules for deepstrike? So far, you've offered nothing.

So, no, my logic isn't flawed. Nothing that you or anyone else has posted demonstrates otherwise.

Further, you are missing the point, by trying to focus on two categories of rules which aren't even capable of being more or less specific than each other and ignoring a relevant portion of the rules in which one rule is definitely more specific than the other.


And yes, you're right, you did catch the end of movement thing before I got my edit off. I'll give you credit for checking the rules on your own.

[webron]

I was actually tweaking you about the sophistry of your arguments, Bean. I am fully aware of the rules for coherency, they are one of the few things that have not changed (well, not too much) since i started playing this game more then a little while ago.

At several points in this thread you have accused people who think that this rule is clear and should work as intended of being rules lawyers, when you can only try to make your point by reading additional words into the rules to defeat what everyone can see is the purpose of this rule.

I understand that the mawloc has a scary attack, i am not sure at all how to deal with it myself. But i think it is also really cool and i can't wait to see one of my nid playing friends try it. I don't try to make arguments to say that the unit can't be used.

i figure they will need some tricks to deal with my wolves tearing their precious bugs to pieces.

[j78]

What do you have to support the notion that the rule on page 14 is less specific than the rules for deepstrike? So far, you've offered nothing.

So, no, my logic isn't flawed. Nothing that you or anyone else has posted demonstrates otherwise.

Further, you are missing the point, by trying to focus on two categories of rules which aren't even capable of being more or less specific than each other and ignoring a relevant portion of the rules in which one rule is definitely more specific than the other.

And yes, you're right, you did catch the end of movement thing before I got my edit off. I'll give you credit for checking the rules on your own.

pg14 is a more generalized rule, because the act of "placing a model" occurs in every game, every time you deploy, everytime you move, everytime a model assaults, these are all acts of placing a model. you brought this up earlier when you were looking for examples of placing to see how many times it occurs. you asked about frequency of placing models when deciding what was general and what was specific.

i don't want p14 to factor in at all. i stated before that it shouldn't, and that the rules for deepstrike are self contained. the rules for deepstrike specifically allow you to place a model anywhere on the table, with no restrictions. i'm done there, and i think that clearly allows the mawloc to deepstrike into a model.

others, including you, have tried to use the restriction from p14 and say it applies to the deep strike rules on p95. in response to that, i have tried to point out that p14 clearly provides for exceptions, and i believe deepstrike is one of those exceptions.

thanks for the credit. is there a store or somewhere i can cash it in? or do i get to freely say something stupid later? if i can choose, i'll go with b, because i'm at work and i'm sure i'll post something stupid again.

[Bean]

I was actually tweaking you about the sophistry of your arguments, Bean. I am fully aware of the rules for coherency, they are one of the few things that have not changed (well, not too much) since i started playing this game more then a little while ago.

I guess I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish, then.



At several points in this thread you have accused people who think that this rule is clear and should work as intended of being rules lawyers, when you can only try to make your point by reading additional words into the rules to defeat what everyone can see is the purpose of this rule.


I am entirely positive that I have never accused anyone in this thread of being a rules lawyer. If anyone's been reading additional words into anything, you certainly were when you came to that conclusion.



I understand that the mawloc has a scary attack, i am not sure at all how to deal with it myself. But i think it is also really cool and i can't wait to see one of my nid playing friends try it. I don't try to make arguments to say that the unit can't be used.


It's not really scary at all. It's less powerful than a Basalisk shot, the Mawlock only gets it once every other turn at most, and it's way less accurate.

I was basically willing to forgive you for accusing me of something that I most certainly didn't do (accuse others of being rules lawyers) but this is really going too far. My position on this subject has nothing to do with whether or not I think the Mawloc's ability is fair, overpowered, or even worthwhile (personally, even if it did work the way you think it does, I wouldn't play it over a Trygon). I certainly am not making up arguments to say it can't be used because I don't want it to be used against me, and the assertion that I am is really unacceptable.


So, tweak at me all you want. Don't lie about what I've said, though, and don't make ridiculous and condescending guesses about my motivations.



To j78:



pg14 is a more generalized rule, because the act of "placing a model" occurs in every game, every time you deploy, everytime you move, everytime a model assaults, these are all acts of placing a model. you brought this up earlier when you were looking for examples of placing to see how many times it occurs. you asked about frequency of placing models when deciding what was general and what was specific.

If you read the entirety of that same post, you'd note that I don't actually think it matters whether Deepstriking shows up more than Placing or not. I made that pretty clear. My assertion was that your position relies on that comparison, and that you would be obviously wrong if the comparison went the other way. You're still wrong, even if that particular mechanism of convincing you has failed.

As for whether it did actually fail, the verb "place" isn't used for describing the deployment of models, as far as I can see. Rather, the verb "deploy" is used. Can you actually find a quote where it says that you place models when deploying them? I was willing to let it pass earlier, before I realized that you weren't going to accept it's irrelevance, but if you're going to keep pushing this as support for your position, you're actually going to have to demonstrate that it's true--and so far, you haven't (nor has anyone else).

[webron]

I think that since the terror from the deep attack pushes enemy models out of the way, the writers where trying to avoid this argument. If the terror from the deep moves the enemy models, then the mawloc does not end up in impassable terrain.

[Bean]

Sure, but it has to land on them before it can push them out of the way, and it has to be placed somewhere before it can land on anything What's your point?

[j78]

As for whether it did actually fail, the verb "place" isn't used for describing the deployment of models, as far as I can see. Rather, the verb "deploy" is used. Can you actually find a quote where it says that you place models when deploying them? I was willing to let it pass earlier, before I realized that you weren't going to accept it's irrelevance, but if you're going to keep pushing this as support for your position, you're actually going to have to demonstrate that it's true--and so far, you haven't (nor has anyone else).

again, my position is that p14 doesn't have anything to do with deepstriking. deepstriking is its own self-contained rule.

if it says deploy, then it says deploy. i was simply trying to look at things from the other perspective. i could just keep repeated over and over again that p14 doesn't have anything to do with deepstriking, but i was trying to follow the other argument and see how it is that you've convinced yourself that it's clearly the other way.

and just to make sure i understand you, your claim is that the language on p14 is a restriction that should be placed on the word anywhere in the deepstrike rules. you don't feel that the language on p14 which mentions exceptions, applies at all?

[webron]

my point is that when you DS into impassable terrain, you roll on the mishap table. when a mawloc DS into impassable terrain you use the terror from the deep attack, which will get rid of that impassable terrain, if it is made up of enemy units. So problem solved. I guess my reading says that the model is not really there until the deepstrike move is completed.

Anyway, i doubt there is anything that can be said that will convince you that you are wrong. Which is great, blessed is the mind too small for doubt, and all that. But there is no point in responding further to your post because you don't really have anything new to say, i read your points, i then re-read the rules and determined you are wrong. When i get my hands on the nid book, i will read them all again, but i doubt that it will change my mind back to my original position. All that can be done is wait for the Errata to come out.

[Lerra]

Those who are arguing that the Mawloc can't initiate a deepstrike onto enemy models: do you also think that the deepstriking model follows the movement rules (ex: when you move the initial model due to scatter, does it follow the movement rules, including being unable to move within 1" of an enemy model, etc)?

If this is the case, it effects much more than just Tyranids. Are you planning to play with the "RAW" deep strike rules?

[Bean]

J78:

Yes, that about sums it up. I do not feel that the wording on page 14 about specific exceptions is relevant because neither the Mawloc nor the Deepstrike rules contain a specific exception.


Webron:


I guess my reading says that the model is not really there until the deepstrike move is completed.

And I guess that the fact that this is explicitly contrary to what the Deepstrike rules actually say isn't going to sway you, at this point, is it?



Anyway, i doubt there is anything that can be said that will convince you that you are wrong. Which is great, blessed is the mind too small for doubt, and all that. But there is no point in responding further to your post because you don't really have anything new to say, i read your points, i then re-read the rules and determined you are wrong. When i get my hands on the nid book, i will read them all again, but i doubt that it will change my mind back to my original position. All that can be done is wait for the Errata to come out.

Yeah, that basically sums up how I've begun to feel about you, too. Guess we'd better just not bother, then. In that case, Cheers!

[j78]

J78:

Yes, that about sums it up. I do not feel that the wording on page 14 about specific exceptions is relevant because neither the Mawloc nor the Deepstrike rules contain a specific exception.

then my follow up question deals with pg 11. it says a model may not move through the space occupied by another model.

in the deepstrike rules on 95, it says you move the model the 2d6" on the scatter. what happens if there's another model in the way? does it not scatter that far? it wouldn't go to the mishap table, because you haven't deployed yet, simply place and move.

[Bean]

Lerra raised that point earlier (and, on review, just recently, as well, though I must have missed it initially).

It's a good question, and it may be one that actually breaks the game. The problem, really, is that the one rule requires you move the model a specific distance in a specific direction, while another rule, under certain circumstances, might prohibit you from doing so. I can't find anything that would give one rule priority over the other, so the only conclusion to which I have come, so far, is that the game breaks and can only be fixed by house-ruling it.

If you can come up with something else, though, I'm all ears.

And no, I don't think this is a good reason to implement a house rule carefully designed to allow the Mawloc to function the way you want it to. A much less invasive house rule could easily fix the problem.

[j78]

well i cite it as an example of why the rules in the movement section, including the restriction from p14, are to be read independent of the deepstrike rules.

if you follow my reasoning, and read them seperately there is no conflict.

if you follow your logic, there is a conflict between p11 and p95 that must be house ruled, because otherwise the game is broken.

i would think that because there is a problem that as you said, breaks the game, by reading it the way you do, it lends support to the way i would read it. deepstrike as an independent rule.

and i'm not ignoring anyresponses, but i'm offline for a while. look forward to reading later.

[Bean]

And, again, I don't think you can just pick and choose which rules to use, even if using all the relevant rules causes the game to break down. The way I'm reading it is correct. The fact that it breaks the game is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts.

[Fizyx]

And, again, I don't think you can just pick and choose which rules to use, even if using all the relevant rules causes the game to break down. The way I'm reading it is correct. The fact that it breaks the game is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts.


See, the thing is you are picking and choosing rules. What you are doing is saying that the way you interpret the rules is more correct than the way anyone else does. Man, this is getting to the point of a religous argument. I have faith that my interpretation is the correct one and all.

Man, I leave for two hours and you guys spend 4 pages just to get back to the same place.

[Bean]

I haven't ignored any rules. Thus your assertion is incorrect.

Care to try again?

[Fizyx]

I haven't ignored any rules. Thus your assertion is incorrect.

Care to try again?

You are picking and choosing which rule is the general rule and which one is specific, which is exactly what you were accusing us of.

[Fizyx]

I'm just glad we are all well behaved, which is why we are the only forum with an unlocked thread on this topic, probably.

[Jwolf]

And, again, I don't think you can just pick and choose which rules to use, even if using all the relevant rules causes the game to break down. The way I'm reading it is correct. The fact that it breaks the game is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that is interesting as an intellectual exercise, but not useful in playing the game.

I'm not going to make my opponent's target their Mawlocs "legally," because it takes about the brainpower of a gnat to know how the stupid thing is supposed to work (after reading the Codex entry).

To be clear, I think that RAW is 100% on the side of the "Mawlocs only work if they scatter the right direction" camp, but that anyone actually following the RAW is playing 100% against the obvious intent, and should be clear on that. I'm not normally a RAI over RAW kind of guy, but this one is seriously a no-brainer.

[j78]

And, again, I don't think you can just pick and choose which rules to use, even if using all the relevant rules causes the game to break down. The way I'm reading it is correct. The fact that it breaks the game is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts.

the difference is, i'm not ignoring any rules. the way i play it, and understand it, is that the rules for deepstrike are a subset of the main rules. they grant an exception to the "place on impassible terrain" and they have a consequence if that occurs after the scatter. i see the rule on p14, and realize it doesn't apply because the deepstrike rule has an exception built in.

again, i think my reading of it is supported completely by the fact that if you read it the other way, the game breaks down completely.

i guess the question to you would be, why isn't deep strike is an exception. the book is filled with exceptions. why is deepstrike different?

[Shavnir]

the difference is, i'm not ignoring any rules. the way i play it, and understand it, is that the rules for deepstrike are a subset of the main rules. they grant an exception to the "place on impassible terrain" and they have a consequence if that occurs after the scatter. i see the rule on p14, and realize it doesn't apply because the deepstrike rule has an exception built in.

again, i think my reading of it is supported completely by the fact that if you read it the other way, the game breaks down completely.

i guess the question to you would be, why isn't deep strike is an exception. the book is filled with exceptions. why is deepstrike different?

I have a hypothetical situation for you that illustrates the other viewpoint : If there was a rule that said "move the model anywhere on the table" would you argue that that a model with such a rule could move into the middle of impassable terrain?

[j78]

I have a hypothetical situation for you that illustrates the other viewpoint : If there was a rule that said "move the model anywhere on the table" would you argue that that a model with such a rule could move into the middle of impassable terrain?

i think it would depend on where this rule was located.

[HsojVvad]

i think it would depend on where this rule was located.

Now I think you are debating for the sake of debating. :D. Seriously I think he made a really valid point there.

What is the big deal anyways? Chances are if you wanted to DS onto an inpassible terrian you will scatter anyways, so wouldn't it better to just pick a place hoping you will scatter onto a mini instead?

Also just think of it this way, that if the Mawloc dosn't DS onto a unit, the unit or person, got out of the way once he felt the ground started to rumble, shake and move.

But after reading the rules, I don't see anything where DS allows to bypass the main rules. Next thing we will be saying is we will be able to Flank on top of models when we flank now. Since the rules said we have to go on what ever side we roll on or get to choose, and it dosn't say we can't go into impassible terrian as well. What about other units coming from reserve? It dosn't say they can't be placed into impassible terrian, just says that it has to come from the players edge. So you telling me that these mini's can come from impassible terrian on the players edge when coming from reserve or when outflanking as well?

[Fizyx]

But after reading the rules, I don't see anything where DS allows to bypass the main rules. Next thing we will be saying is we will be able to Flank on top of models when we flank now. Since the rules said we have to go on what ever side we roll on or get to choose, and it dosn't say we can't go into impassible terrian as well. What about other units coming from reserve? It dosn't say they can't be placed into impassible terrian, just says that it has to come from the players edge. So you telling me that these mini's can come from impassible terrian on the players edge when coming from reserve or when outflanking as well?


Sorry for this farcical approach, but I hope we can all understand the ridiculousness of the last 80-some-odd posts in this thread.

I really don't think many people are actually taking this debate too seriously. Rather, we're just being nit-picky because we are waiting for some filler compound to set. Well, at least one person is.

[Pil]

Codex says "If the Mawloc deep strikes onto a point occupied by another model," not "If the Mawloc scatters onto a point occupied by another model,". Also the way he works if he can't DS into the middle of a unit then he is 10 times more useless then he already is. So the intent is clear if you choose to be a jerk about it till the faq comes out, and GW clearly stats it (And you know they will) then you will just make people mad at you for no reason. Is winning at pushing little army men around so important to you that you would rather bend and twist wordings to a unreasonable point that no one even wants you in the shop playing anymore? Try to use common sense about things like this that are glaringly obvious in how they are suppose to work.

Also the codex is very clear in stating that the Mawloc is placed last. He DS into a unit you place large blast template, not the Mawloc, resolve all casualties. Then move all surviving units the minimum distance to clear the large blast template, THEN place Mr. Mawloc. It is suppose to represent him bursting from underneath the ground so you would get hit by the rubble that is str 6 ap 2 first, and blown out of the way knocked around what have you. So then the hole he emerged from is clear of everything for him to pop up. He doesn't fall from the sky. I mean seriously you nay sayers think he falls from the sky? Or that he emerges first then the ground blows opens for his hole he burrowed through?

[webron]

But after reading the rules, I don't see anything where DS allows to bypass the main rules. Next thing we will be saying is we will be able to Flank on top of models when we flank now. Since the rules said we have to go on what ever side we roll on or get to choose, and it dosn't say we can't go into impassible terrian as well. What about other units coming from reserve? It dosn't say they can't be placed into impassible terrian, just says that it has to come from the players edge. So you telling me that these mini's can come from impassible terrian on the players edge when coming from reserve or when outflanking as well?

The problem with this argument is that outflanks, as well as all reserves not deep striking enter the board using the movement rules. The deep strike rule is separate from the normal movement rules. I think the purpose of this model and its rule are very clear. People are just trying to find a reason to say why it can't work like it is supposed to. Up until this point, the only reason a person would try to DS onto impassable terrain is if they had a monolith, which to me seems to work in the same way as the mawloc. I realize the crons are an older codex, so who knows how the rules will be re-written (hopefully soon for all you cron players). But if a cron player wanted to DS a monolith in the middle of my IG army, I would have no problem with that. At least under the rules, I know from experience what a big problem that causes for the guard.

[HsojVvad]

Damn, I thought I had an answer to this when I woke up. Now that I showered and looked at the rules, I am wrong. I was going to say what if you mishap and then your opponent has to place you. Can he put you in impassible terrian, and it states that he can't, and without scatter. So maybe because scatter was mentioned in that specific rule, can we say that since it wasn't mentioned with the Mawloc rule that it really means you can do it then? Something more to nitpic on eh? :o

Also, even if GW puts out an FAQ, the FAQ means diddly squat since it changes nothing. Now if GW errata's it, then you have to fallow it. (then again GW says to change any rules you want lol ;) ) but since FAQ are not official by GW statement it has to be errated to really mean anything. Yes I know 99% of the people say GW FAQ's are official but there is always that 1% who will argue it till the cows come home.

Now I am on the fence either way. By RAI I say th eMawloc should be able to DS on Impassible terrian (enemy model) but by RAW can't really say since if we go by RAW and if it was in a court of law, then we can't say page 13 over rides page 95 or page 95 overrieds page 13. So we just roll it for now if the 2 parties can't come to an understanding, and accept what ever is in the Errata or FAQ when ever it arrives.

[BuFFo]

Codex says "If the Mawloc deep strikes onto a point occupied by another model," not "If the Mawloc scatters onto a point occupied by another model,".

Deep Strike IS the scatter result.

Thats when you enter the table.

[j78]

who knows, at least it gave me something to do at work yesterday.

after reading the mawloc rule again, i see that is says "the spot the mawloc is emerging from". to ensure i'm strictly following RAW, i will make sure to bring some sort of power tool to dig a hole through the board and allow my mawloc to sufficiently emerge.

but seriously, even though i don't agree with the other reading of the rule, i can appreciate that people are convinced they're right, just like i'm convinced i'm right. hopefully it doesn't cause too many problems on the table and GW gets out something to address the issue fast. i've been really impressed with the speed of answers lately, maybe it's a trend that will continue to get better.

more of a moral victory, i actually managed to fit the stupid giant bug in my army case. now that is an accomplishment.

[Pil]

Deep Strike IS the scatter result.

Thats when you enter the table.


Uh no it isn't or they wouldn't specifically say "If the Trygon scatters onto impassable terrain or another unit"
Read the codex on the two of them so you can see where I am coming from they are very specific about DS onto, and scatter onto.

[BuFFo]

Uh no it isn't or they wouldn't specifically say "If the Trygon scatters onto impassable terrain or another unit"
Read the codex on the two of them so you can see where I am coming from they are very specific about DS onto, and scatter onto.

Yes it is.

If you read the first sentence of the second paragrpah under the Mawlocs Terror from the Deep, the rule is quite blunt about what 'Deep Strike' means.

You can only know the result of the second paragraph after you have found the final position of the Mawloc, and how do we know when to do it? The first paragraph tells us. Since you won't know the final position of Deep Strike until after the scatter, the part about 'if a Mawloc Deep Strikes onto a point....' can ONLY mean the final position.

It is impossible to do the second part of the rule if you think the first part is the initial marker positioning.

[Pil]

Yea it says to place a large blast template where he is emerging from. Not place the Mawloc. Honestly people that are fighting this are just grasping at straws for no good reason that I can think of. I find it hard to believe people are this scared of a large blast template shot that has 0 BS. Not only that, but it can only be used every other round. The wording is clear it can DS onto a unit. I have yet to meet anyone IRL that argues this, only see these comments on the interwebs. The other funny thing is no one is going to be fielding a 170 point blast weapon with 0 BS that only goes off every other round. If you deploy your Mawlocs and the game ends at the end of round 5 you get 2 shots wow 2 shots for 170 points each. To top them off they are craptacular in CC. Trygons will own the battlefield they are a great unit with great rules, and model. GW did good with the Trygon.

[HsojVvad]

I agree with you Pil why people are so overreacting over a 170 point blast weapon (didn't realise it was BS 0, does that mean it misses then with BS ? I don't understand what you mean by this.) that only goes off every other round. Problem is it has to land on an enemy model. Do you know how hard it is to NOT scatter?

I believe it would be easier to scatter onto an enemy model than it is to HIT an enemy model on DS. Unless your opponent puts all his models together and the person decides to DS the Mawloc right in the middle of said models, I don't see what the big deal is.

Again unless it's Errated and not FAQ'ed this debate will go on for ever till one person gives up.

I guess another problem is we all live in different countries so our English language is all different to each other. There are small differences in how the UK, Canada, Australia, US, etc etc speak english that it makes huges debates. Maybe we are all right because of this, we were taught how to read english in our own countries way. Just keep this in mind before starting to call other people names.

[j78]

so i used it last night, and here's what happened.

my guard opponent was fully aware of what was going to happen (and we had already talked about the rule and he had no problem me deepstriking on him).

of course, he was hugging the table edge, so i was terrified to lose my new model. there was a heavy bolter team a bit forward, so i went for them, scattering 11 inches backward. luckily i didn't fry my own guys. then my giant stupid bug proceeded to get bogged down by fuzzy hatted guardsmen for the rest of game.

why not hit and run you ask? because i didn't realize i had hit and run. too many new rules to keep track of.

long story short, i went through alot of trouble trying to prove i could do something, that i will probably never ever do again. i feel so empty.

[HsojVvad]

so i used it last night, and here's what happened.

my guard opponent was fully aware of what was going to happen (and we had already talked about the rule and he had no problem me deepstriking on him).

of course, he was hugging the table edge, so i was terrified to lose my new model. there was a heavy bolter team a bit forward, so i went for them, scattering 11 inches backward. luckily i didn't fry my own guys. then my giant stupid bug proceeded to get bogged down by fuzzy hatted guardsmen for the rest of game.

why not hit and run you ask? because i didn't realize i had hit and run. too many new rules to keep track of.

long story short, i went through alot of trouble trying to prove i could do something, that i will probably never ever do again. i feel so empty.

Hehe,that is funny, I always forget about the rules as well. Just got a question. How could you fry your own guys? I don't get that part.

[BuFFo]

Yea it says to place a large blast template where he is emerging from. Not place the Mawloc. Honestly people that are fighting this are just grasping at straws for no good reason that I can think of. I find it hard to believe people are this scared of a large blast template shot that has 0 BS. Not only that, but it can only be used every other round. The wording is clear it can DS onto a unit. I have yet to meet anyone IRL that argues this, only see these comments on the interwebs. The other funny thing is no one is going to be fielding a 170 point blast weapon with 0 BS that only goes off every other round. If you deploy your Mawlocs and the game ends at the end of round 5 you get 2 shots wow 2 shots for 170 points each. To top them off they are craptacular in CC. Trygons will own the battlefield they are a great unit with great rules, and model. GW did good with the Trygon.

100% agreed.

The two nid players in my area have recently realized at how crappy the Mawloc is, and are now fielding Trygons instead.

[Fizyx]

100% agreed.

The two nid players in my area have recently realized at how crappy the Mawloc is, and are now fielding Trygons instead.

I've found the opposite to be true. With a lack of AP in the army, it can be really handy. Yeah, it scatters, but I've wrecked enough 2+ and 3+ armor to make my Mawloc worth it on the three occasions I've played it. You also have to remember the psychological effect it has on the other player. They will watch their positioning very carefully when they know it is a threat. This is very handy when there is limited board space.

[BuFFo]

I've found the opposite to be true. With a lack of AP in the army, it can be really handy. Yeah, it scatters, but I've wrecked enough 2+ and 3+ armor to make my Mawloc worth it on the three occasions I've played it. You also have to remember the psychological effect it has on the other player. They will watch their positioning very carefully when they know it is a threat. This is very handy when there is limited board space.

You got lucky to 'wreck' so many terminators and marines with a no AP hit lol.

In combat, the Mawloc is sub par when compared to the Trygon, and they have the same armor, so AP isn't an issue here, especially since they both burrow near enemy lines.

I will agree with you on the psychological aspect. Players fighting the new nids for the first time will fear it, until they realize they will just end up shooting it/assaulting it to death next turn.

[webron]

I think the mawloc will be great against MEQ armies. I am a bit worried about it against my wolves. My army is pretty small, 3-4 squads so losing one to this attack will have a large effect on the game. If I see one, i will have to respond by deploying my forces to minimize its effectiveness. Considering that I generally charge into the center of the enemy, it will cramp my style.

Even with scatter it hits 1/3 of the time and it can pop up into close combat, which is a nasty as units get bunched up after the first round. So a mawloc can wipe out a pretty big unit with some luck. And the willingness to kill a bunch of bugs.

[Shavnir]

You got lucky to 'wreck' so many terminators and marines with a no AP hit lol..

Given it causes S6 AP2 hits that you can't take terrain based cover saves against it doesn't take that much luck. Maybe against storm shields and the like but straight marines die right out on a 2+.

But since you've "read the book" you knew that already right? ;)

Anyways like I've said before, just errata it so you pick a position, scatter it, if its off the board mishap otherwise do the blast rules in the book then deep strike the Mawloc on that point without scatter. Bam, the rule works "as intended" and no messy rule complications.

[BuFFo]

Given it causes S6 AP2 hits that you can't take terrain based cover saves against it doesn't take that much luck. Maybe against storm shields and the like but straight marines die right out on a 2+.

Well, that changes things lol. I guess since my opponent has been trying to burrow under my IG Tanks, the AP2 never came up.

I can totally see how MEQ players fear this guy. Being an IG/DE player myself, its meh at best.


But since you've "read the book" you knew that already right? ;)

Yeah, I have the book, but I barely read it. I read the fluff on the toilet, and that's about it lol!


Anyways like I've said before, just errata it so you pick a position, scatter it, if its off the board mishap otherwise do the blast rules in the book then deep strike the Mawloc on that point without scatter. Bam, the rule works "as intended" and no messy rule complications.

I have no idea what you are talking about 'errata' it. The way you have it is so wrong its unbelievable. The way you worded this I really can't understand what you are saying, sorry.

1) Pick a point on the table for Deep Strike.
2) Scatter as normal for Deep Strike.
3) If off the table or under impassible terrain it is Mishap Chart time
4) If under a unit, the blast happens. Units take the hits. Units move out of the way, and the Mawloc appears.

Easy.

In real life, with real people, using real rules, those are the basic four steps to the Mawloc. Done and done.

[Shavnir]

I have no idea what you are talking about 'errata' it. The way you have it is so wrong its unbelievable. The way you worded this I really can't understand what you are saying, sorry.

1) Pick a point on the table for Deep Strike.
2) Scatter as normal for Deep Strike.
3) If off the table or under impassible terrain it is Mishap Chart time
4) If under a unit, the blast happens. Units take the hits. Units move out of the way, and the Mawloc appears.

Easy.

In real life, with real people, using real rules, those are the basic four steps to the Mawloc. Done and done.

I'm talking about altering it so you can designate a location to start the scatter in the middle of enemy troops or impassable terrain. Ignoring your already questionable reading skills there's been quite a bit of debate in the thread, it might do you some good to read it.

[j78]

. Just got a question. How could you fry your own guys? I don't get that part.

well i had some horms running in,and11" backwards, i almost scattered onto them. the rule says "another" model, not an enemy, so i could have templated my own bugs. which would have been a fitting end for me, i would have argued my way into killing my own models.

[BuFFo]

I'm talking about altering it so you can designate a location to start the scatter in the middle of enemy troops or impassable terrain. Ignoring your already questionable reading skills there's been quite a bit of debate in the thread, it might do you some good to read it.

Barely a debate, because when you Deep Strike, you follow Deep Strike rules.

You can place your initial model anywhere on the table. If it happens to be in impassible terrain or any unit, you use the mishap chart.

I can read English just fine. ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE means exactly what it means.

You, and the rest of the argument pack here in this thread, need to learn basic English. This will allow you all to understand what ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE means.

[Shavnir]

Barely a debate, because when you Deep Strike, you follow Deep Strike rules.

You can place your initial model anywhere on the table. If it happens to be in impassible terrain or any unit, you use the mishap chart.

I can read English just fine. ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE means exactly what it means.

You, and the rest of the argument pack here in this thread, need to learn basic English. This will allow you all to understand what ANYWHERE ON THE TABLE means.

Once again I'll propose a hypothetical situation that illustrates the flaw with your logic :

If you had a rule that said you could move anywhere on the table could you move into impassable terrain?

[Bean]

BuFFo's "logic" has more holes than a cheese grater, and we must have pointed out a dozen, already. Why do you think one more would have any effect?

If he had enough sense to realize how inane his position is, he'd have realized it by now.

[gcsmith]

Sigh the mawlock can designate enemy models. only those who play against reg nid players seem to argue against it

[Shavnir]

Sigh the mawlock can designate enemy models. only those who play against reg nid players seem to argue against it

Last I checked the only nid opponent Bean has is me, and nids are my second army.

So aside from you being a troll that didn't read the thread have any other crackpot theories?

[Bean]

Sigh the mawlock can designate enemy models. only those who play against reg nid players seem to argue against it

This assertion is just inane. You have no basis for making that assumption at all. Point in fact, I have never played against a Mawloc, know no-one who plans to play a Mawloc against me, and don't anticipate that I will see very many Mawlocs at all.

Not only do you obviously not have enough information to justify this assertion, it basically comes with the assertion that I (and presumably everyone else who has taken the same position) have done so because we don't want to have to deal with the Mawloc targeting our units in the manner you claim is possible.

This is just insulting. My position on the topic has nothing at all to do with my opinion about the Mawloc or any imaginary concerns I might have about facing it. I imagine the the same is true about the others you've accused. In fact, Shavnir does actually play nids--and he agrees with me.

So, you're just wrong. Please refrain from this sort of baseless insult in the future.

[gcsmith]

This assertion is just inane. You have no basis for making that assumption at all. Point in fact, I have never played against a Mawloc, know no-one who plans to play a Mawloc against me, and don't anticipate that I will see very many Mawlocs at all.

Not only do you obviously not have enough information to justify this assertion, it basically comes with the assertion that I (and presumably everyone else who has taken the same position) have done so because we don't want to have to deal with the Mawloc targeting our units in the manner you claim is possible.

This is just insulting. My position on the topic has nothing at all to do with my opinion about the Mawloc or any imaginary concerns I might have about facing it. I imagine the the same is true about the others you've accused. In fact, Shavnir does actually play nids--and he agrees with me.

So, you're just wrong. Please refrain from this sort of baseless insult in the future.



Sorry if what I said seems insulting, and yes I admit i was wrong to say that. kindof. However, the rule as intended is really clear from both fluff and the exact wordings within the mawloc, however i must admit that cruddence seems to be a imperial player as while the guard codex seems to be often clear cut there are many stupid wordings in the nid book. Also to say shavnir you seem to say i clearly havnt read the thread. Well I have, its just.... well everyone I know says u can, the GW staff members and every player around me. Let me put it this way. How many points would a mawloc be without the blast plate. about 100 so that means its a weapon which should be aimed. Again im sorry for anything seeming insulting. However it was written late and was not my intention at all. im sorry and will put more effort in future posts.

[BuFFo]

GCSmith,

What you have come across is a simple case of internet argument versus real life play.

This is akin to the old terminator teleporter homer argument. Just because it may seem 'logical' online, does not mean any human being would allow it to happen in real life during a game.

Try to tell a Tyrnaid player he can't DS a Mawloc into a unit, and if he is above 7 years old, he will laugh at you.

These pointless "Warsewer" threads only serve one function; ePeen.

+1

[Shavnir]

Sorry if what I said seems insulting, and yes I admit i was wrong to say that. kindof. However, the rule as intended is really clear from both fluff and the exact wordings within the mawloc, however i must admit that cruddence seems to be a imperial player as while the guard codex seems to be often clear cut there are many stupid wordings in the nid book. Also to say shavnir you seem to say i clearly havnt read the thread. Well I have, its just.... well everyone I know says u can, the GW staff members and every player around me. Let me put it this way. How many points would a mawloc be without the blast plate. about 100 so that means its a weapon which should be aimed. Again im sorry for anything seeming insulting. However it was written late and was not my intention at all. im sorry and will put more effort in future posts.

I agree that it is a shame that it doesn't work, but my posts in this thread have been more a "here is why its broken, here's how to fix it" nature. Unfortunately you cannot base rulings off of GW staff members or players around you if that's not what the rules say. Case in point, the Genestealer tactica they posted to the website recently takes about 3 minutes to find something that would require cheating to make work. :p

[Jwolf]

And I'm done. 20 pages so that we can have the "technical" argument presented over and over, especially where the way the game should and will be played is obviously not that way, is enough.