PDA

View Full Version : Mawloc mystery?



scar face
12-01-2010, 19:14
I recently got the tyranid codex delivered to my house and I was wondering if anyone could any a question I have with the Mawloc:


When the mawloc arrives, it places a strength 6 large blast over where it comes out... OK, i've got that part, next it says: survivers of the blast are moved the shortest possible distance to avoid being under the mawloc's base when it is placed (after the blast)... with RAW, I suppose the shortest possible distance would be to move within 1" of the mawloc, which is realistically combat with it.... could someone clarify this please, because I might have to take a mawloc instead of the trygon otherwise!

thanks,

scar.

Rydmend
12-01-2010, 19:16
It does not count as being in combat if it emerges under the squad, they take the hits and then move out of the way like a tank shock or drop pod.

Radium
12-01-2010, 19:18
You can never be within 1" of an enemy model unless you launch an assault. Did the Mawloc assault? If the answer is 'no', the enemy will have to be more than 1" away.
It's the same situation when you tank shock someone, they'll have to move out of the way via the shortest route possible, but enough to be more than 1" away from the tank.

And this should be in the rules forum ;).

Vepr
12-01-2010, 19:22
Anyone or anything that cannot move out of the way is destroyed. Making the Mawloc fairly nasty and requiring people to really think about where they are placing their vehicles.

scar face
12-01-2010, 19:27
Anyone or anything that cannot move out of the way is destroyed. Making the Mawloc fairly nasty and requiring people to really think about where they are placing their vehicles.

Thanks, but unless the vehicle is immobilised, surely it can still move/

scar.

Vepr
12-01-2010, 19:32
Thanks, but unless the vehicle is immobilised, surely it can still move/

scar.

It is not a move made by the vehicle itself it is forced by the Mawloc entrance. Imagine the standard IG artillery box set up at the corner of the table as an example.

scar face
12-01-2010, 19:34
Ok, thanks.

scar.

Deetwo
12-01-2010, 19:41
Anyone or anything that cannot move out of the way is destroyed. Making the Mawloc fairly nasty and requiring people to really think about where they are placing their vehicles.

Actually achieving this is a bit of a stretch though, since you can only get the Mawloc on top of enemy models if it scatters there.

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:07
you can place the mawloc directly on top of enemy models, and there is a 1 in 3 change that you wont scatter. I plan to reinforce this via the lictor's pheremone trail, preventing it from scattering.

scar.

SPYDER68
12-01-2010, 20:11
you can place the mawloc directly on top of enemy models, and there is a 1 in 3 change that you wont scatter. I plan to reinforce this via the lictor's pheremone trail, preventing it from scattering.

scar.

No, you cannot place the mawloc ontop of enemy models per RaW..

Please check the rules forum on the thread there about it already.

Vepr
12-01-2010, 20:11
Actually achieving this is a bit of a stretch though, since you can only get the Mawloc on top of enemy models if it scatters there.

This will probably end up in a FAQ because the wording is vague at best but from the WD article it seems you can do it on purpose not just by deviation.

SPYDER68
12-01-2010, 20:13
This will probably end up in a FAQ because the wording is vague at best but from the WD article it seems you can do it on purpose not just by deviation.

Ive seen WD battle reports with 3 Marine HQ's in a single list for example.

There is many many times in battle reports where they are way off on some rules and even some army lists are illegal.

can't really go by.. "they did it in a White dwarf"

Rydmend
12-01-2010, 20:15
you can place the mawloc directly on top of enemy models, and there is a 1 in 3 change that you wont scatter. I plan to reinforce this via the lictor's pheremone trail, preventing it from scattering.

scar.

There is nothing in the codex that specifically says the mawloc can or cannot DS under squads even though I think they intended that you could DS under squads. Until it gets an faq there will be arguments I bet...sigh....faqs needed before the offcial release date.

Scarob
12-01-2010, 20:18
No, you cannot place the mawloc ontop of enemy models per RaW..

Please check the rules forum on the thread there about it already.

in that case, the new nid codex has another b*gger up in it!! how disapointing! :mad:

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:20
I will still play it as I infact can strike under squads. The terror from the deep rule states that if the mawloc deeep strikes onto a point occupied by enemy models, so yes, it doesn't say against this.

This shouldn't really be FAQ'd, more common sense in relation to the background and intention more like.

scar.

SPYDER68
12-01-2010, 20:21
I think they intended that you could DS under squads

And i think they intended to be only on a scatter that you can hit units, another version of safe deepstrike, to make things a little less cookie cutter :p.

RaI can go either way.

primarch16
12-01-2010, 20:21
The very fact they included rules for when a mawloc lands on enemy models is a clear indication that it can be placed on top of them when deep striking.

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:23
And i think they intended to be only on a scatter that you can hit units, another version of safe deepstrike, to make things a little less cookie cutter :p.

RaI can go either way.

The mawloc would be nigh-on useless then... and really, do you think that they would design it not to burst from the ground and hurt anytyhing beneath it?

scar.

SPYDER68
12-01-2010, 20:23
I will still play it as I infact can strike under squads. The terror from the deep rule states that if the mawloc deeep strikes onto a point occupied by enemy models, so yes, it doesn't say against this.

This shouldn't really be FAQ'd, more common sense in relation to the background and intention more like.

scar.

It doesnt say against it, but there is the standard rule that you cannot place onto enemy models, and nothing in the Mawlocs rules bypass that.

and you CAN deep strike onto a point occupied by enemy models.. if you scatter upon them..

Playing it the other way is a House rule you will need to discuss with your gaming group.

Vepr
12-01-2010, 20:23
There would be no reason to ever take a Mawloc over a Trygon if it could not DS into squads on purpose. A lictor would actually make a Mawloc worse if this was the case!

Radium
12-01-2010, 20:24
The very fact they included rules for when a mawloc lands on enemy models is a clear indication that it can be placed on top of them when deep striking.

No, it's not. The inclusion of those rules only means something happens when the Mawloc ends his deepstrike on top of other models. Just like Droppod. But it doesn't mean you can intentionally land on top of other models.

But please, check the thread in the rules forum and add to it there. This has no place in 40k general.

SPYDER68
12-01-2010, 20:25
There is no reason to ever take Flash Gits over lootas since their guns fail.

There is no reason to ever take so and so unit over so and so unit..

Every codex has this.

Lictors are horrible still, the chance of getting to use him as a homor is very slim to none, best thing they have is +1 reserves.

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:26
Pg 95 in the rulebook

"First place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like to arrive"

I rest my case,

scar.

Radium
12-01-2010, 20:28
From pages 13 and 14: "other models and enemy models are impassable terrain" "you cannot place models in impassable terrain".

Now where does the Mawloc override the part about not being able to be placed in impassable terrain?

SPYDER68
12-01-2010, 20:29
Yes on the table.. not on other units..

What case ?

Page 13..

Impassable terrain.. Enemy and friendly models count as this.

Models may not move through or into Impassable terrain.

So how do you place a model into that ? when it says you cannot.

Ninja'd!

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:32
Yes on the table.. not on other units..

What case ?

Page 13..

Impassable terrain.. Enemy and friendly models count as this.

Models may not move through or into Impassable terrain.

So how do you place a model into that ? when it says you cannot.

Ninja'd!

Ah, but it says you can place it anywhere on the board, contradicting itself.

If the rulebook keeps condradicting itself, there really is no hope for the gamers....

scar

Radium
12-01-2010, 20:37
Okay, last try.
Board != models.
Furthermore it doesn't give you permission to place it on top of another model. Which you would need to be able to do so given 40k's permissive ruleset. The rules for the Mawloc give you the ability to place it on the board and deepstrike etc etc. Nowhere do they give you the power to place them on top of other models or something. And because there are rules about where you can and cannot place models on the board, and the Mawloc does not override these rules, there are certain limitations to where it can be placed. One of those limitations is that it cannot be placed in impassable terrain, which other models are.

We can discuss RaI all you want, but unless you manage to get the writer into this there is not point to do that as we simply do not know his intention.

aka_mythos
12-01-2010, 20:38
If it ends up in impassible terrain, your unit is lost. If it ended up on a unit and didn't have the rule that pushed them out of the way, it would also be lost.

Rick Blaine
12-01-2010, 20:41
Specific rules override general rules.
Deep Strike is more specific than Terrain. Terror from the deep is more specific than deep strike.

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:41
Ok, I see all your points and I see we all think each others is wrong. Yeah, I will leave this now and thanks for giving me some thought into the RaW and RaI.

However, @ aka_mythos, the mawloc's rules specifically say that it doesn't.

scar.

Vepr
12-01-2010, 20:42
With the way the rest of this codex is designed it would not surprise me if it was only meant to scatter into things. :no:

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:43
What do you mean/

scar.

DeadlySquirrel
12-01-2010, 20:48
Ah, but it says you can place it anywhere on the board, contradicting itself.

If the rulebook keeps condradicting itself, there really is no hope for the gamers....

scar

sorry, but to me you sound like quite the rules troll

razormasticator
12-01-2010, 20:49
What do you mean/

scar.

I think he means the Codex is written poorly and FUBAR.

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:51
FUBAR?

I havn't seen any bad codex bits (please point some out to me) apart from quite repetitive fluff?

scar.

DeadlySquirrel
12-01-2010, 20:54
FUBAR = ********d up beyond all repair

scar face
12-01-2010, 20:55
Oh dear, and by how is it "FUBAR"'d?

scar

razormasticator
12-01-2010, 21:05
Oh dear, and by how is it "FUBAR"'d?

scar

Not my opinion, I have just read enough from his point of view to know he isnt all that crazy about alot of the changes. But this might have been altered since the book is pretty much out now.

But having been in threads with discussions about the book and changes to nids, I know Vepr wasnt all that crazy about this stuff initially..

Not that I am trying to put words in his mouth, because I am not. But if I recall correctly he does not like Cruddances codex very much.

Vepr
12-01-2010, 22:46
Where did I say the entire dex was FUBAR? I am saying with the lictor just jumping out and standing there, the pyrovore, the double cost fex that is beaten out by most other things in the dex, the harpy, the Tyranofex, the loss of flesh hooks, among other things it would not surprise me if the Mawloc was built by design to only have the chance of scattering into another unit. It would make it a lot worse than the Trygon but not a surprise.

jspyd3rx
13-01-2010, 02:08
I don't think some of you guys arguing over the mawloc deep strike have read the specific rules from the codex. Remember codex overrides BRB.

MVBrandt
13-01-2010, 02:15
The way the rule is written in the actual dex, it's doable, b/c you resolve the blast and move the models before you actually place the Mawloc. So, you're selecting a point, doing something to that point, and not placing him at all until space is made. It's fine. In other words, the rule never requires you to place the mawloc on other models ... since that is indeed illegal.

nagash66
13-01-2010, 02:22
The way the rule is written in the actual dex, it's doable, b/c you resolve the blast and move the models before you actually place the Mawloc. So, you're selecting a point, doing something to that point, and not placing him at all until space is made. It's fine. In other words, the rule never requires you to place the mawloc on other models ... since that is indeed illegal.

But you have still selected a point with enemy models, which count as impassable terain for deep strike, so no you still cant, as you still need to select the point BEFORE doing the blast/move which you cant.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 02:24
P. 13
Impassable terrain cannot be moved across or into.
Enemy and friendly models count as impassable terrain
Wobbly model syndrome (if difficult to place, can put it elsewhere for 'safe keeping')

p.95
Deep Strike:
Place one model anywhere on the table.


I am placing the model, not moving into or across anything.


The act of placing the model, is just a step in the DS *process*, it is not actually on the table.
To assert otherwise opens up all sorts of problems.

lets say the model scatters 12", and that takes it 'across' impassable terrain, can it get passed?

Or if it scatters through difficult terrain, does it have to roll a dangerous terrain test?

What if a unit is in the way? Does it get stopped?

Or my favorite, if you initially place the model into terrain, but it scatters out, does it still take a dangerous terrain test? It was in terrain, and it is considered dangerous.....

*IF* you make the assumption that the model is actually on the table, and therefore subject to all the pertinent rules, there is nothing in the rules that lets you ignore going through units, terrain, etc.
By reading all of the rules, in their entire context, it is clear that the first model is used as a placemarker.

To assert otherwise also means spore mines would not have worked in the last (current?) codex.

After reading the rules again it seems this is correct. You never actually place any models until after the deepstrike die is rolled. You can technically place your terminator deepstike point on an enemy models head, if you roll "hit" you would simply roll on the mishap table.

The mawloc has a rule that alters how it deals with deepstriking into enemy units, something a terminator doesn't have. If terminators had the mawlocs special rule they too would be allowed to deepstrike into enemy units without rolling on the mishap table.

CKO
13-01-2010, 02:34
I love how everything GW has tried to build can come crashing down by a simple rule, however in my gaming group I always expect the worst as with most society traits.

ehlijen
13-01-2010, 02:42
The monolith has had to deal with having a rule for deepstriking on top of enemy units but not being allowed to intentionally do so since 3rd ed. This is hardly a new thing.

And deepstriking does indeed involve placing the first model in the unit at the intended destination before rolling for scatter.

nagash66
13-01-2010, 02:43
p.95Deep Strike:Place one model anywhere on the table.

So i still say no.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 02:47
The monolith has had to deal with having a rule for deepstriking on top of enemy units but not being allowed to intentionally do so since 3rd ed. This is hardly a new thing.

And deepstriking does indeed involve placing the first model in the unit at the intended destination before rolling for scatter.

Read my post with coredumps quote in it and you'll see that we are not saying otherwise.

CKO
13-01-2010, 02:50
The white dwarf report clearly shows the intent of the mawloc where it appeared below the terminators and killed two of them, but like the valkyrie they will give it a weakness.

I agree with coredumps though.

MVbrandt your the guy that argues with stelek aka sir spam alot list.

LOL

nagash66
13-01-2010, 02:51
After reading the rules again it seems this is correct. You never actually place any models until after the deepstrike die is rolled. You can technically place your terminator deepstike point on an enemy models head, if you roll "hit" you would simply roll on the mishap table.

But you cant "echnically place your terminator deepstike point on an enemy models head" which is what i am speaking against. And you can place a model before a deep strike is rolled. As for the mawloc, its rules speak for what happens IF, the IF being for a scatter or other weird case, nowhere does it say you can place it under other models so it cant. Very simple really.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
13-01-2010, 02:55
But you cant "echnically place your terminator deepstike point on an enemy models head" which is what i am speaking against. And you can place a model before a deep strike is rolled.

I disagree, you can deepstrike your models ANYWHERE on the table if you want to. Into impassible terrain, onto another model, whatever. If, after the scatter roll, the model is located somewhere it normally could not deepstrike (including in a unit, impassible terrain, etc) then you roll on the deepstrike mishap table. Thus models with special rules could deepstrike into a unit intentionally. Normally you wouldn't want to try and deepstrike a unit into one of these locations (with terminators, for instance) since it would just cause a mishap, but you certainly could if you wanted to.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 03:02
p.95Deep Strike:Place one model anywhere on the table.

So i still say no.

Your only quoting part of it. Look at this.

Read wobbly model syndrom p.13
Read impassable terrain p.13
Read unit coherency p.13
Read deepstrike p.94

p.94
"first place one model from the unit anywhere on the table, in the position you would like that unit to arrive."
This says nothing about delploying this unit or keeping unit coherency or having this model count as the entire unit. It simplay says "in the position you would like that unit to arrive"

To go back to coredumps statment if you select a piece of terrain as a deepstrike point and the unit scatters out of the terrian you would not have to take a dangerous terrain test.

The book also states "If a scatter occurs, roll 2D6 to see how many inches the model moves away from its intended position."
It's intended position clearly means that it was never there in the first place.
You can in fact pick a fire warriors head as a deepstrike target, with wobbly model syndromes rule you do not have to place a model but simply note your "intended position" of deepstrike and roll to scatter as normal. If you score a hit then you immediatly roll on the mishap table, unless you had a rule like the mawlocs which allows the model to be placed in enemy units without consulting the mishap table.

nagash66
13-01-2010, 03:02
I disagree, you can deepstrike your models ANYWHERE on the table if you want to. Into impassible terrain, onto another model, whatever. If, after the scatter roll, the model is located somewhere it normally could not deepstrike (including in a unit, impassible terrain, etc) then you roll on the deepstrike mishap table. Thus models with special rules could deepstrike into a unit intentionally. Normally you wouldn't want to try and deepstrike a unit into one of these locations (with terminators, for instance) since it would just cause a mishap, but you certainly could if you wanted to.

No you cannot disagree you can cheat, sure cheat all you want for i quote the BrB( booklet in this case) impassable terain part page 14

"Models may not be placed in impassable terain, unless the models concerned have a speacial rule in their profile granting them a exception(like being able to fly above the terain)"

So no you cant place a model in there and hope for the best, BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE RULES. Simple aint it? Must place a model to deep strike, cannot place models in impassable terain, for ds purposes models count as impassable terain.

Edit: to make sure you all get this page 95 of the rulebook deep strike section: "First place a model...." not token or marker BUT model.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 03:17
No you cannot disagree you can cheat, sure cheat all you want for i quote the BrB( booklet in this case) impassable terain part page 14

"Models may not be placed in impassable terain, unless the models concerned have a speacial rule in their profile granting them a exception(like being able to fly above the terain)"

So no you cant place a model in there and hope for the best, BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE RULES. Simple aint it? Must place a model to deep strike, cannot place models in impassable terain, for ds purposes models count as impassable terain.

Edit: to make sure you all get this page 95 of the rulebook deep strike section: "First place a model...." not token or marker BUT model.

Your not reading the rules my friend. Read my posts and read the rules.

If that model counts as a whole unit and is indeed placed as a unit before the scatter dice is rolled than how come you do not need to take a dangerous terrain test if your initial DS point is in terrain and you scatter out of it?

Your model was clearly "placed" in terrain, right? That doesn't mean it was ever actually deployed via deepstrike in that terrain. Only after the scatter is a model actually on the table.

As coredump asked, what if a model placed on table crossed over an enemy unit during its scatter roll? Rules clearly state "units cannot crossover or move into" impassable terrain. Would the scatter stop at the unit in the way or at a piece of impassable terrain? No. That's because the unit is never actually on the table until after the scatter is rolled. Get it?

nagash66
13-01-2010, 03:23
Your not reading the rules my friend. Read my posts and read the rules.

If that model counts as a whole unit and is indeed placed as a unit before the scatter dice is rolled than how come you do not need to take a dangerous terrain test if your initial DS point is in terrain and you scatter out of it?

Your model was clearly "placed" in terrain, right? That doesn't mean it was ever actually deployed via deepstrike in that terrain. Only after the scatter is a model actually on the table.

As coredump stated, what if a model placed on table crossed over an enemy unit during its scatter roll. Rules clearly state "units cannot crossover or move into" impassable terrain. Would the scatter stop at the unit in the way? No. That's because the unit is never actually on the table until after the scatter is rolled. Get it?

Oh i am reading the rules quite clearly.

Dangerous terain is simple once you determine the final position then aply dangerous terain, so you place you model in the terain roll for scatter if hit roll for dangerous.

Now we do it with impassable terain we place the model..oh no we CANT place the model, so we CANT roll scatter so we CANT determine final position so we cant aplpy any negative effects, so we CANT deep strike there.

As for the scatter cross over, we do not drag a model to the scattered location, we as the rules CLREARLY tell us to determine the new location and place it there.No cross over model draging involved i am afraid. Again simple and easy if one opens the rulebook and follows the rules.

Edit : i already quoted the rules themselves plz have a look at the whole section, and i belive you will come around to agree that they state what goes down quite clearly.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 03:33
Oh i am reading the rules quite clearly.

Dangerous terain is simple once you determine the final position then aply dangerous terain, so you place you model in the terain roll for scatter if hit roll for dangerous.

Now we do it with impassable terain we place the model..oh no we CANT place the model, so we CANT roll scatter so we CANT determine final position so we cant aplpy any negative effects, so we CANT deep strike there.

As for the scatter cross over, we do not drag a model to the scattered location, we as the rules CLREARLY tell us to determine the new location and place it there.No cross over model draging involved i am afraid. Again simple and easy if one opens the rulebook and follows the rules.

Edit : i already quoted the rules themselves plz have a look at the whole section, and i belive you will come around to agree that they state what goes down quite clearly.

You are misunderstanding. If the intended DS location is normal terrain it counts as dangerous for deepstriking purposes. If I scatter out of the terrain into open ground I do not have to take a dangerous terrain test.

The way you think the rules work would require you to take a dangerous terrain test even if you scattered out of terrain. Since you seem to believe the unit was actually placed in the terrain in the first place and then scattered out of it. The rules clearly say moving into or out of dangerous terrain requires a dangerous terrain test. Deep strike says nothing about ignoring this roll. This means that you are indeed never in the terrain in the first place.

The model is moving from it "intended position" not its actual postion.

Inquisitor_Tolheim
13-01-2010, 03:33
No you cannot disagree you can cheat, sure cheat all you want for i quote the BrB( booklet in this case) impassable terain part page 14

"Models may not be placed in impassable terain, unless the models concerned have a speacial rule in their profile granting them a exception(like being able to fly above the terain)"

So no you cant place a model in there and hope for the best, BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE RULES. Simple aint it? Must place a model to deep strike, cannot place models in impassable terain, for ds purposes models count as impassable terain.

Edit: to make sure you all get this page 95 of the rulebook deep strike section: "First place a model...." not token or marker BUT model.

Hold up, I'm not ALLOWED to disagree? That seems a little asinine. The crucial sentence in question to me is: "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". For me the operative word is "anywhere". The sentence concerning mishaps (I.E. impassible terrain) reads: "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be DEPLOYED because they would land off the table, in impassible terrain, on top of a friendly model..." (Emphasis mine, Both quoted from page 95 of the BRB).

The unit isn't "Deployed" until the deepstrike is completed, including the scatter roll. Thus the model can initially be placed ANYWHERE, and scatters to its final location. If it's initially placed in impassible terrain and doesn't scatter out then congratulations: you just gave yourself a roll on the mishap table. You can still put it there if for some unforseeable reason you think it's the best tactical decision.

nagash66
13-01-2010, 03:37
Hold up, I'm not ALLOWED to disagree? That seems a little asinine. The crucial sentence in question to me is: "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". For me the operative word is "anywhere". The sentence concerning mishaps (I.E. impassible terrain) reads: "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be DEPLOYED because they would land off the table, in impassible terrain, on top of a friendly model..." (Emphasis mine, Both quoted from page 95 of the BRB).

The unit isn't "Deployed" until the deepstrike is completed, including the scatter roll. Thus the model can initially be placed ANYWHERE, and scatters to its final location. If it's initially placed in impassible terrain and doesn't scatter out then congratulations: you just gave yourself a roll on the mishap table. You can still put it there if for some unforseeable reason you think it's the best tactical decision.

page 14

"Models may not be placed in impassable terain, unless the models concerned have a speacial rule in their profile granting them a exception(like being able to fly above the terain)"


The word used by the rules is placed, so deep strike says place, but rules may NOT place. See what i am getting at. As for the disagree you cant disagree with the rules, you ether follow them or dont.


You are misunderstanding. If the intended DS location is normal terrain it counts as dangerous for deepstriking purposes. If I scatter out of the terrain into open ground I do not have to take a dangerous terrain test.

The way you think the rules work would require you to take a dangerous terrain test even if you scattered out of terrain. Since you seem to believe the unit was actually placed in the terrain in the first place and then scattered out of it. The rules clearly say moving into or out of dangerous terrain requires a dangerous terrain test. Deep strike says nothing about ignoring this roll. This means that you are indeed never in the terrain in the first place.

The model is moving from it "intended position" not its actual postion.

But thats not what i am saying, the bad or good stuff comes from the final determind location. However impasable terain is not an option to place models in.

As i said above both rules use the word place, so there really is not wiggle room.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 03:39
Hold up, I'm not ALLOWED to disagree? That seems a little asinine. The crucial sentence in question to me is: "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". For me the operative word is "anywhere". The sentence concerning mishaps (I.E. impassible terrain) reads: "If any of the models in a deep striking unit cannot be DEPLOYED because they would land off the table, in impassible terrain, on top of a friendly model..." (Emphasis mine, Both quoted from page 95 of the BRB).

The unit isn't "Deployed" until the deepstrike is completed, including the scatter roll. Thus the model can initially be placed ANYWHERE, and scatters to its final location. If it's initially placed in impassible terrain and doesn't scatter out then congratulations: you just gave yourself a roll on the mishap table. You can still put it there if for some unforseeable reason you think it's the best tactical decision.

good job =)

Vineas
13-01-2010, 03:42
It's touchy and tricky as the deep strike means just that. Squads are parachuting or using jump/jet packs to hover to the ground so it'd make sense if they couldn't DS onto an enemy unit as they'd put themselves in more danger than the enemy.

The mawloc isn't "dropping in", it's coming up from under the ground. Judging by the size of the model I would guess that if some dudes (even terminators as heavy as they are, had a giant worm thing weighing as much as a Bradley APC (about 20 tons) coming up under them with a mouth big enough to swallow even a terminator whole, I don't see why the mawloc would be like "oh ****, there are sources of food above me that the hive tells me are a lot smaller than I am but I had better not try to come up underneath. I might give myself a concussion on their boots".

It's stupid to not think it can be done purposely and I know my group will let me. If you don't land right via parachute you'll break something. Land in a building that's been leveled by earthquake with all of it's beams and **** sticking up all over you will most likely end up ****ed up (hence the dangerous terrain rule) so landing on top of a squad of dudes/aliens/creatures that aren't keen to have you around would make you end up dead so you won't purposely drop (tis why I think a DP should be able to drop onto an enemy squad like a tank shock). Something 15ft long and weighing tons should be able to pop up under some grunts in flak vests who might have a combined weight of 2,000 pounds with all their gear.

My group played in 4th that my lictors didn't stub their toes when they came into play as they weren't actually dropping into terrain. They were there the whole time. Not like they'd impale themselves shifting their scales from bendy light version to you can see me now version.

Niddler
13-01-2010, 03:46
This thread should be moved to the rules section.

But anyway.


Dangerous terain is simple once you determine the final position then aply dangerous terain, so you place you model in the terain roll for scatter if hit roll for dangerous.

...

As for the scatter cross over, we do not drag a model to the scattered location, we as the rules CLREARLY tell us to determine the new location and place it there.No cross over model draging involved i am afraid. Again simple and easy if one opens the rulebook and follows the rules.


Actually the rules for Dangerous Terrain clearly state on pg. 14 that you roll a D6 "for any model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain" it doesn't say anywhere that you wait for the models final location to determine if it takes the test or not. So if the model was placed in Dangerous Terrain at any time, by your logic the dangerous terrain test would still be made, which makes no sense in the case of Deep Strike.

Unless you are saying that the model never actually enters or leaves the dangerous terrain? But if that is the case why would the other restrictions apply if the model isn't actually there?

Inquisitor_Tolheim
13-01-2010, 03:47
page 14

"Models may not be placed in impassable terain, unless the models concerned have a speacial rule in their profile granting them a exception(like being able to fly above the terain)"


The word used by the rules is placed, so deep strike says place, but rules may NOT place. See what i am getting at. As for the disagree you cant disagree with the rules, you ether follow them or dont.

It also, in the section I quoted, says place "anywhere". Which section takes precedent? That's where our disagreement comes in. I can see what you're getting at, I simply interpret the rules differently.

At any rate, wouldn't the Mawloc's deepstrike ability be the "special rule" required by the passage you're using? You might still have a point for my "deepstrike into impassible terrain" example, but in the case that started this discussion I still can't see why the Mawloc (or Monolith, etc.) couldn't choose to deepstrike onto an enemy unit via its special rule.

nagash66
13-01-2010, 03:51
This thread should be moved to the rules section.

But anyway.



Actually the rules for Dangerous Terrain clearly state on pg. 14 that you roll a D6 "for any model that has entered, left or moved through one or more areas of dangerous terrain" it doesn't say anywhere that you wait for the models final location to determine if it takes the test or not. So if the model was placed in Dangerous Terrain at any time, by your logic the dangerous terrain test would still be made, which makes no sense in the case of Deep Strike.

Unless you are saying that the model never actually enters or leaves the dangerous terrain? But if that is the case why would the other restrictions apply if the model isn't actually there?

No my problem with what their saying is simple, rules state a model is placed for DS, but impassable terain states no model can be placed, hence you cannot ds into it. As for dangerous it ampies to final determened location.

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 03:54
page 14

"Models may not be placed in impassable terain, unless the models concerned have a speacial rule in their profile granting them a exception(like being able to fly above the terain)"


The word used by the rules is placed, so deep strike says place, but rules may NOT place. See what i am getting at. As for the disagree you cant disagree with the rules, you ether follow them or dont.



But thats not what i am saying, the bad or good stuff comes from the final determind location. However impasable terain is not an option to place models in.

As i said above both rules use the word place, so there really is not wiggle room.

The models are never actually in the impassable terrain to begin with. The placed model in the deepstrike section is only in it "intended location". RAW this means that the model is never actually in the impassable terrain merely where that model intends to go. The mishap table prevents models from being placed in impassable terrain, that is its sole function.

My above example you keep ignoring still holds true.

If you intend to deepstrike into difficult terrain (which counts as dangerous during DS) and you scatter into clear ground how come you do not have to take a dangerous terrain test after the scatter? Since you believe the model was placed in terrain before the scatter roll.....

CKO
13-01-2010, 03:54
This monster already exist in the rules section, maybe a merger?

nagash66
13-01-2010, 03:55
It also, in the section I quoted, says place "anywhere". Which section takes precedent? That's where our disagreement comes in. I can see what you're getting at, I simply interpret the rules differently.

At any rate, wouldn't the Mawloc's deepstrike ability be the "special rule" required by the passage you're using? You might still have a point for my "deepstrike into impassible terrain" example, but in the case that started this discussion I still can't see why the Mawloc (or Monolith, etc.) couldn't choose to deepstrike onto an enemy unit via its special rule.

By you logic i can place it in my car or better yet in my next battke with you since it is within "anywhere". Anywhere as long as it is within the rules, What you are doing is trying to make youre power gaming ( twisting the rules to get a advantage otheriwse not there) need satisfied.

However if we ever played this would not be a problem, as if you told me this i would simly not play you and we could both move on to have a good time.

Of course i could still deep strike my termies in youre next game with someone esle, it being "anywhere" and all ;)

Inquisitor_Tolheim
13-01-2010, 03:55
This monster already exist in the rules section, maybe a merger?

Good Call.

nagash66
13-01-2010, 03:57
The models are never actually in the impassable terrain to begin with. The placed model in the deepstrike section is only in it "intended location". RAW this means that the model is never actually in the impassable terrain merely where that model intends to go. The mishap table prevents models from being placed in impassable terrain, that is its sole function.

My above example you keep ignoring still holds true.

If you intend to deepstrike into difficult terrain (which counts as dangerous during DS) and you scatter into clear ground how come you do not have to take a dangerous terrain test after the scatter? Since you believe the model was placed in terrain before the scatter roll.....


I did not ignore, as what i am saying makes what you are saying worthless, you want to place a model inside impassable terain, that is not possible as rules say you may not place one there. Both rules use the word place so where is this not clear?

As for the dangerous terain i will say yet again it is determined at the final location what happens to the unit. What you are saying is not possible as you cannot nominate impassable terain as a deep strike point ( may not place a model there).

Niddler
13-01-2010, 04:02
As for dangerous it ampies to final determened location.

May I ask where in the rules is this stated? I cannot seem to find it. Only thing I've found is "Models arriving via Deep Strike treat all dificult terrain as dangerous terrain.":confused:

nagash66
13-01-2010, 04:04
May I ask where in the rules is this stated? I cannot seem to find it. Only thing I've found is "Models arriving via Deep Strike treat all dificult terrain as dangerous terrain.":confused:

Yes and since the model placed has not moved into or out off it does not happen, it is simple a placed model to show where the unit arrives.

Impassable terain does not allow models to be placed in it however, hence how this all began. As ds need a model to be placed and impsable terain does not allow this.

Noserenda
13-01-2010, 04:05
Damn, Nagash just keeps painting himself into a corner...

Even barring extreme minutiae of the RAW (Which still seems to favour the Mawloc jumping folks) its about as obvious as a Carnifex wearing drag and badly applied lipstick trying to infiltrate a strip joint that RAI has them popping up under enemy units :evilgrin:

Rydmend
13-01-2010, 04:05
I will be responding in the Mawloc post over in the rules section from now on as we are having this very same discussion over there. Feel free to join =)

nagash66
13-01-2010, 04:06
Damn, Nagash just keeps painting himself into a corner...

Even barring extreme minutiae of the RAW (Which still seems to favour the Mawloc jumping folks) its about as obvious as a Carnifex wearing drag and badly applied lipstick trying to infiltrate a strip joint that RAI has them popping up under enemy units :evilgrin:

I dont see how i have ever painted myself into a corner, people want to ignore the rules? fine just done pretend to abide by them . DO or do not, there is no try.


Edit: i too head over to rules section.

Vepr
13-01-2010, 04:09
Carnifex wearing drag and badly applied lipstick trying to infiltrate a strip joint

How many points is that in the new codex? :p

DaeIca
13-01-2010, 10:18
I do not have the dex infront of me, but if I'm not mistaken it is written in the same fashion as the 'Hades Breaching Drill'. Specifically, you place the template before any models are actually placed on the table, roll for wound, then move all subjugated models directly 1" away from the drill afterwards.

Broken Loose
13-01-2010, 10:32
Arguing that you can't deep strike into units because you can't move into units is somewhere along the lines of arguing that jump infantry can't move 12" because it says that models move 6" 30 pages earlier.

Deetwo
13-01-2010, 11:07
Arguing that you can't deep strike into units because you can't move into units is somewhere along the lines of arguing that jump infantry can't move 12" because it says that models move 6" 30 pages earlier.

An exception is an exception.
The Mawloc does not have one, it has to go by the rules that disallow you to place it on top of an another model.

Memnos
13-01-2010, 11:09
Actually, there's an easy way to resolve RAW rulesets:

The Mawlock can not move on to impassible terrain.

Deep-striking <> movement. Movement is when someone starts at one point on or off the board and crosses an intervening distance to get to another point.

There is no crossing of intervening distance in this case: RAW, the creature comes in to existence at that point in time, being birthed from the primordial ooze at that very point in time and space.

Therefore, there's no movement according to RAW and the Mawlock can be placed directly upon an enemy unit. No where is Deepstrike said to be 'movement' in RAW. Therefore, no argument that it is can be made from RAW.

Deetwo
13-01-2010, 11:42
RaW really does require you to read the rules though ;)

p14 Impassable Terrain:
"Models may not be placed in impassable terrain..."

Broken Loose
13-01-2010, 12:15
Page 95 of the rulebook states that you place the central model of the deep striking unit in the place you "intend" the unit to land, which can be any point on the table. Then you roll for scatter, and the unit "arrives" from deep strike at the location nominated by the scatter dice. If this location causes the model to land within impassable terrain or a model already on the table, you roll on the mishap table.

The Mawloc's Terror from the Deep rule dictates that, in the case of arrival inside a model, you drop a S6 AP2 pie plate in that location, then move any survivors out of the way as to allow the Mawloc to be legally placed. If the survivors cannot move without breaking coherency, going within 1" of an enemy model (save for models in assault at the time), or going through a unit that isn't allowed to move due to this rule, then they are destroyed. The Mawloc is then placed.


The Deep Strike and Terror from the Deep rules are crystal clear. Even if you were DSing normal terminators, you would be allowed to nominate that they land inside an enemy squad. The difference is that, in their case, doing so would be a Very Bad Idea.


The Mawloc can operate under its intended purpose, which is pie-plating marines dumb enough to not be in a car, with no problems according to the rules. QED.


"But what about placing models in Impassable?"
The Mawloc would mishap if it scattered into Impassable. Case closed.

"But you can't move into enemy models!"
Deep Striking isn't movement, or else you'd only be able to Deep Strike models that were on the table and they would only have a 6 inch range.

"The Mawloc cannot be placed on top of another model."
Oh, yes, it can. ANYBODY can Deep Strike on top of another model. The difference is that the game forces the Deep Striking model to roll on the Mishap table whenever this happens. If you couldn't be placed on another model, the Mishap table wouldn't exist. Stop playing 4th Edition.

Broken Loose
13-01-2010, 12:28
I can't believe people are so up in arms about the Tyranids getting a S6 Orbital Bombardment. Are any of you aware that the Mawloc has a 3+ armor save and is T6? Or that he's WS3 (with 3 attacks) and has no guns?

You take a single S6 pie plate at BALLISTIC SKILL ZERO and then you shoot this 6 inch tall model with every anti-tank gun in your army at this 170-point model that can't get cover saves. What, were you saving all those lascannons, missile launchers, meltaguns, multi-meltas, fusion guns, brightlances, assault cannons, railguns, demolisher cannons, battle cannons, dark lances, pulse lasers, prism cannons, particle whips, and warp lances for Land Raiders? What else are you going to aim those things at?

You can even run at it with a powerfist and probably wipe it out in a single assault phase. You WILL get the charge because he WILL be doing nothing for a turn.

Deetwo
13-01-2010, 12:36
It's simple really. The rules area clear, if you bother to read them.

1 The Mawloc follows the normal Deep Strike rules exactly, until it would need to roll Mishap for landing on enemy units.
2 Deep Striking requires you to place the model on the table before rolling to scatter.
3 You can't place a Mawloc into impassable terrain (page 14).
4 Other models are treated as impassable terrain (page 13)

ThePope
13-01-2010, 12:48
Can anyone imagine tremors the movie with the guys standing in a field going

"its safe if we stand still they can't come up from under the ground to eat us!"

Would make a crap film even worse just like not letting a Mawloc come up under squads would make for a dull game.

I remember when this game used to be about fun and rules of cool not power gaming maniacs.....

Deetwo
13-01-2010, 12:53
I remember when this game used to be about fun and rules of cool not power gaming maniacs.....

Yeah and then GW decided players should actually do what the rules say...
The bastards.

The impassable terrain rule does include the caveat that players can decide if they want to allow models being placed in it.
I don't think they intended it to be applied to models, but it's there indirectly atleast.

Broken Loose
13-01-2010, 13:20
2 Deep Striking requires you to place the model on the table before rolling to scatter.

Incorrect. Deep Striking requires you to mark the position the model is intended to land, and then you use that to determine where the model actually appears. If the model were to actually end up on the table and then move, spore mines wouldn't ever scatter (by virtue of blowing up in mid-drift). Also, you wouldn't be able to scatter through an enemy unit, even if you were supposed to land in a clear spot-- your logic states that the deep striking unit would land on the surface and run through an enemy unit.

In fact, you know what? Spore mines have functioned in exactly this same way since 2001 and yet this argument doesn't happen. Where have you been for the last 9 years? Or are you suddenly interested because AP2 is scary?

LonelyPath
13-01-2010, 13:50
If you read the entry for the Mawloc it states that you do not roll on the mishap table if it lands on another model. You place the large blast, resolve hits, move models out of the way and then place the Mawloc model itself. Models/units moved out of the way must be at least 1" from the Mawloc, if they cannot reach this distance, they are removed as casualties (as per the rule). Using this system and in the order its presented in the Codex it goes like this:

1. Place large blast.
2. Resolve hits, remove casualities.
3. Move models say they would be at least 1" from Mawlocs base.
4. Remove models that would not be at least 1" from the Mawlocs base.
5. Resolve placement of the Mawloc (in other words, finally placing it).

Going by the first sentence of the rule though, you CAN intentionally DS a Mawloc onto a unit as it says in black and white that this is not a mishap. While units normally cannot be placed or scatter onto units, the Mawloc is the exception to this rule. Also following DS rules, by the time to place the model there are no models there for it to be placed on, so it's completely legal.

Personally I think it's a pretty simple rule, but that's me and after all these years of playing games with idiotic rules systems like Justifiers had, it all pretty much comes down to common sense.

Lunar
13-01-2010, 14:09
I think this has been read into a *bit* too much.

Logically here (yes i know... Tyranids don't really exist :rolleyes:) if the Mawloc wasn't allowed to emerge from under a squad what would be the point of having one over a Trygon? I can't imagine Fire Warriors/ Marines/ Imperial Guard stamping it back down, the thing is huge, anything above it would be flung pretty far but as the rules say; just out of combat range.

SPYDER68
13-01-2010, 14:14
Incorrect. Deep Striking requires you to mark the position the model is intended to land, and then you use that to determine where the model actually appears. If the model were to actually end up on the table and then move, spore mines wouldn't ever scatter (by virtue of blowing up in mid-drift). Also, you wouldn't be able to scatter through an enemy unit, even if you were supposed to land in a clear spot-- your logic states that the deep striking unit would land on the surface and run through an enemy unit.

In fact, you know what? Spore mines have functioned in exactly this same way since 2001 and yet this argument doesn't happen. Where have you been for the last 9 years? Or are you suddenly interested because AP2 is scary?

Please read the rules before posting..

The very first line.. in second paragraph...page 95..... First place one Model from the unit... in which you want the unit to arrive..

And guess what.. old spore mines couldnt deep strike onto units either when bought from fast attack.


If you read the entry for the Mawloc it states that you do not roll on the mishap table if it lands on another model. You place the large blast, resolve hits, move models out of the way and then place the Mawloc model itself. Models/units moved out of the way must be at least 1" from the Mawloc, if they cannot reach this distance, they are removed as casualties (as per the rule). Using this system and in the order its presented in the Codex it goes like this:

1. Place large blast.
2. Resolve hits, remove casualities.
3. Move models say they would be at least 1" from Mawlocs base.
4. Remove models that would not be at least 1" from the Mawlocs base.
5. Resolve placement of the Mawloc (in other words, finally placing it).

Going by the first sentence of the rule though, you CAN intentionally DS a Mawloc onto a unit as it says in black and white that this is not a mishap. While units normally cannot be placed or scatter onto units, the Mawloc is the exception to this rule. Also following DS rules, by the time to place the model there are no models there for it to be placed on, so it's completely legal.

Personally I think it's a pretty simple rule, but that's me and after all these years of playing games with idiotic rules systems like Justifiers had, it all pretty much comes down to common sense.


No mawloc doesnt mishap.. but..

You still must follow rules for deepstrike which states you place the model, roll scatter.. scatter said model.. then you place the template for the mawloc..

Either way.. you must place the model first before scatter, and you are not allowed to place a model in impassible terrain.

So how is that not common sence on basic deepstrike rules ?

SideshowLucifer
13-01-2010, 14:23
I don't understand how it's useless. Ask a Daemons player sometime how much they wish they could buy an upgrade that does damage to a unit and avoids a mishap when deepstriking and scattering into a unit. That doesn't seem useless at all to me, just not as useful and precise as the other interpretation would be.

LonelyPath
13-01-2010, 14:26
You still must follow rules for deepstrike which states you place the model, roll scatter.. scatter said model.. then you place the template for the mawloc..

Actually the codex states to place the template where the mawloc is emerging, so common sense dictates that happens before you place the model. Also, other models do not seem to be impassible terrain for a MAwloc, so it's legal to place it there as only Impassible terrain causes mishap tests. It can be placed within 1" of a enemy model.

Rememebr that a codex supersedes the BRB if the codex features alternate methods or their own rules for something featured in the BRB, in this case the Nids codex supersedes the fact that this model can be placed on top of enemy units, meaning you can target enemy units as a starting point for its DS as they are not impassible terrain.

SPYDER68
13-01-2010, 14:31
Actually.. it could be common sense that you do not place said template until you know where he is emerging.. which you dont.. until you have placed the model and rolled the scatter to know where this said model is ending up.

LonelyPath
13-01-2010, 14:38
Actually.. it could be common sense that you do not place said template until you know where he is emerging.. which you dont.. until you have placed the model and rolled the scatter to know where this said model is ending up.

I never said you don't roll for scatter, just that he can emerge among enemy units and they can be used as a starting point for his DS.

zeep
13-01-2010, 19:07
This is beyond absurd. Playing like this requires a use of Raw so inane that politics seems reasonable.

If you play at this level of raw, the game is flat out unplayable... starting with the deployment phase. :rolleyes:

SPYDER68
13-01-2010, 19:12
How is it beyond absurd ? Because you dont agree with it ?

Its no RAW loophole, its right there in the rulebook.

Mawloc says nowhere that he my be placed upon units.. all he states is if he lands on a unit he does those hits.

IJW
13-01-2010, 19:14
Incorrect. Deep Striking requires you to mark the position the model is intended to land
That's not what the Deep Strike section says...


In fact, you know what? Spore mines have functioned in exactly this same way since 2001 and yet this argument doesn't happen.
Not necessarily, because models didn't count as impassible terrain in 3rd & 4th edition - that's something that changed in 5th.

Noserenda
13-01-2010, 19:21
Its beyond absurd because of the model involved, its pretty much only purpose is to burst out of the ground and devour stuff, except in the asinine world of RAW it cant actually do that deliberately, only by accident...

Personally anyone being that much of an ******* would get marching orders down my shop and im the local rules lawyer! :skull:

Elhier
13-01-2010, 19:50
i think this can be resolved quite simply with some common sence. The mawloc is comming up beneath your feat, not teleporting into the same space as you. the difference is obvious really, what this means is that it either eats you or you get out the way, hence the displacement and template. it is not an option for you both to inhabit the same space, simply you either die or get out og the way, its like tank shock but without death or glory.

SPYDER68
13-01-2010, 20:12
Its beyond absurd because of the model involved, its pretty much only purpose is to burst out of the ground and devour stuff, except in the asinine world of RAW it cant actually do that deliberately, only by accident...

Personally anyone being that much of an ******* would get marching orders down my shop and im the local rules lawyer! :skull:

Oh noes.. a rules lawyer! That doesnt go bye RaW ?

k.

naloth
13-01-2010, 20:18
The Mawloc has a special rule that allows it to DS into enemy units (which as normally considered Impassible Terrain and roll for a mishap). That's really not in doubt.

Arguing that they can't intentionally do so because it's unclear if you place the template or the model exactly where you want to land violates the clarity of p14 which spells out that models with any sort of special rule use the special rule instead of the restrictions on p13-14.

aka_mythos
13-01-2010, 20:21
I think its very clear. With the exception of being able to place the template on a unit and hit with a special attack as a result of its deepstrike, it is unchanged from the normal rules.

sayles78
13-01-2010, 20:28
How is it beyond absurd ? Because you dont agree with it ?

Its no RAW loophole, its right there in the rulebook.

Mawloc says nowhere that he my be placed upon units.. all he states is if he lands on a unit he does those hits.

I'm now convinced that you sir, and a few others, are carrying this on for the sole purpose of annoying people. These people are taking the bait and arguing like mad with you too.

Please - ignore this person. I spoke to MY opponents on it and they laughed at the notion of a Mawloc not being able to DS onto enemy units. They said it's obviously what was intended, even if the rules aren't 100% clear. I advise you to talk to your potential opponents, see what they say. At least if they disagree, you can have a constructive discussion with someone that isn't doing it just to wind you up.

Vepr
13-01-2010, 20:54
I'm now convinced that you sir, and a few others, are carrying this on for the sole purpose of annoying people. These people are taking the bait and arguing like mad with you too.

Please - ignore this person. I spoke to MY opponents on it and they laughed at the notion of a Mawloc not being able to DS onto enemy units. They said it's obviously what was intended, even if the rules aren't 100% clear. I advise you to talk to your potential opponents, see what they say. At least if they disagree, you can have a constructive discussion with someone that isn't doing it just to wind you up.

I can see it being an issue at a tournament maybe but everyone where I play agreed that it was meant to be brought up into units on purpose. Otherwise a lictor actually makes the Mawloc worse than it already would be if you had to rely on it scattering into units.

Ozeor
14-01-2010, 06:33
How could anyone think that the mawloc isnt intended to blow the crap out of something when he comes up?

Maybe people think he's cross eyed lol, Mawloc needs glasses!

The purpose for him was to blow the crap out of stuff when he pops up. Look how white dwarf did it, and read what he does on GW's website.

Lunar
14-01-2010, 15:03
Just came upon this (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=5200004a&utm_source=VoxCaster&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=new-article&utm_content=new-article&utm_campaign=VoxCaster-New-Articles).
Very bottom left image. Tell me they even drew the artwork wrongly, go on.

MVBrandt
14-01-2010, 15:14
I can't believe this is still being argued over.

The Mawloc's special rule clearly overrides the placement restriction for the deep strike and rules in general. You pick a location and place a blast marker first, before you ever place him, thus the arguments from earlier where you aren't allowed to place a model on enemy models are all irrelevant. Place the blast marker, move models, gg.

This is akin to trying to RAW away Bjorn's first-turn re-roll by arguing there is no roll for deployment.

scar face
14-01-2010, 16:05
I can't believe this is still being argued over.

The Mawloc's special rule clearly overrides the placement restriction for the deep strike and rules in general. You pick a location and place a blast marker first, before you ever place him, thus the arguments from earlier where you aren't allowed to place a model on enemy models are all irrelevant. Place the blast marker, move models, gg.

This is akin to trying to RAW away Bjorn's first-turn re-roll by arguing there is no roll for deployment.

Thank you... some sense... exactly what I was trying to argue about 4 pages ago :)

scar.

Wisdom like silence
14-01-2010, 16:43
I can't believe this is still being argued over.

The Mawloc's special rule clearly overrides the placement restriction for the deep strike and rules in general. You pick a location and place a blast marker first, before you ever place him, thus the arguments from earlier where you aren't allowed to place a model on enemy models are all irrelevant. Place the blast marker, move models, gg.

This is akin to trying to RAW away Bjorn's first-turn re-roll by arguing there is no roll for deployment.

You're right, but there isn't a placement restriction in the first place. Rules for deep strike say to place the first model anywhere on the table, and there is no restriction on placing models in impassable terrain in the first place - only on moving them in it.

zeep
14-01-2010, 17:34
"Models may not be placed in impassable terrain unless the models concerned have a special rule in their profile granting them an exception (such as bieng able to fly above the terrain) or both players agree to it."

Pg 14 :angel:

However the mawloc clearly has a special rule allowing it, anything else is clearly Raw trolls.

Thanatos_elNyx
14-01-2010, 18:53
This is akin to trying to RAW away Bjorn's first-turn re-roll by arguing there is no roll for deployment.

Well in fairness Bjorn was errata'd

scar face
14-01-2010, 19:12
Well in fairness Bjorn was errata'd

And you dont expect the mawloc to be.....?

This is going to be one hell of a big tyranid errata...

scar.

MVBrandt
14-01-2010, 20:28
You actually can't intentionally place the mawloc in IMPASSABLE terrain, but there are no rules prohibiting you from placing anything on a model/terrain piece/etc. The missions make that irrelevant, and a placement =! a movement. So, it's all kind of irrelevant in a RAW sense too. You can voluntarily place the Mawloc on an enemy model. Show me where it says you can't. Note - you can't MOVE within 1" of or into/onto an enemy model, but a placement isn't inherently a movement, so the comparison is pointless.

Besides the clear intent, you can RAW all day long. If you argue that the deep strike itself is a move and fix yourself on the notion of it being a move and what-not, you're incidentally also giving all models the Drop Pod rule.

There's situation a) model is on the table when you place it, and b) model on table is simply a marker and so you aren't actually there anyway yet. If it's a) you'll notice the deep strike scatter rules say you MOVE it the distance indicated on the dice and in the direction indicated. Well, you're MOVING through enemy models in some cases, which you can't do, so all deep strikes that would scatter through or onto enemy models instantly are "saved" b/c they aren't allowed to move w/in 1" in the first place, right?

This whole thing is silly. Rules lawyering is built to come up with how the game is SUPPOSED to be played, not to go "ha ha look at the bad rules writers" or "neato skeato the mawloc can't actually deep strike like it's supposed to ha ha ha lolusuk." It's not like people go hunting and pecking through the Monopoly rules for an exception that let them never have to pay when landing on Boardwalk, by using semantics and literalism. Everyone would just go "the rules are obvious, doucheface." BUT if the rules were unclear about whether going to jail meant you went to the square or actually in jail, that would be something to parse out.

/sigh

IJW
14-01-2010, 20:43
You actually can't intentionally place the mawloc in IMPASSABLE terrain, but there are no rules prohibiting you from placing anything on a model/terrain piece/etc.
That's not really a good argument to use.

Why? Because 5th edition changed from 'you can't move through other models' (paraphrased from 3rd & 4th editions) to 'other models, friends and enemies, also count as impassible terrain'. p13.

Either you can place it in impassible terrain or you can't. If you can't then enemy models are also no-go.

A safer argument would be to say that the bit on p14 doesn't apply to the initial placement of the model for some reason, or to simply house-rule it because you are sure of the designer's intent.

Vepr
14-01-2010, 20:45
Hopefully they have already started the FAQ for nids. Seems like this FAQ might need an index. :p

Souleater
14-01-2010, 21:47
Hopefully they will get with the times and have the FAQ up by the end of next week.

Yeah.