¥ Terminus Est Search Engine ¥

Blood Vow

Happiness is success... (Buddha)

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Deep Striking Mawlocs on top of enemy units & Rules As I Want Them To Be (RAIWTTB)

The rules for deep striking states you must place the unit on the table... Placing them on an enemy unit is not the table. It's very simple and easy to understand. If GW meant for the Mawloc to be able to be placed on top of an enemy unit then they can correct this when they release the FAQ. Sometimes it amazes me the length that people will go to bend a rule.

G

8 comments:

Bodacious said...

I don't care about the mawloc but the rule needs to be clarified just to clarify deep striking.

I have always been under the impression that placing a deep striking unit on top of another was always an acceptable tactic seeing as how the chances are good that they are going to scatter off of the unit. And if they hit, mishap!

Laen said...

Just read the rules on Deep Striking and it seems pretty plain and simple to me. You place the model anywhere on the table. That can be on impassible terrain, a friendly model, a enemy unit, etc.. anywhere. Then you roll the scatter dice. If you roll a hit on the scatter dice the deep striking unit hits right where you put it. In the case of an enemy model, if it is on our within 1" of an enemy model/unit than the deep striking unit rolls on the mishap table(hope for a 1-2 ^_^ (lost in the warp).

However, I do agree that the unit needs to be on the table. So, with that said would you like someone setting their Mawloc model on top of your models? I wouldn't. However, I would allow them to use a template or another base that could be decorated like the ground is falling in or being pushed up to represent the Mawloc arriving. And maybe in that case I wouldn't mind so much. The rules are clearly written and if your opponent wants to take the risk of losing his deep striking units to land on top or as close to your units as possible.. I say let him. I would laugh my butt off if my friend (who deep strikes Sallie Terms) did that and lost his assault term squad to the warp because he was being over zealous. Another way to look at it.. is that Deep Striking units don't arrive above the models but are trying to arrive in the same place as the enemy models.. First thing that comes to mind is that movie with Kevin Bacon... Tremors.

Just my 2 cents.

Matt Varnish said...

I don't know, seems pretty clear to me GBF. The Deepstriking model gets placed anywhere on the table, as per page 95. Then you look at the paragraph top right of page 95 Deep Strike Mishaps.. it says "if any of the models arriving cannot be placed because they would land off table, on top of frindly model, or on top or within 1 inch of an enemy model, consult the table"

So this means you don't actually have to place the model on the table, because then you consult the chart. So this means its perfectly legal (and stupid) to stack 3 drop pods on top of one another jenga style, but teh Mawloc's rules state you replace the whole mishap thing, and do teh Terror rule.

Otherwise, your argument of "its not on the table if its on my model" do you mean to tell me no one can deploy on hills? since they would technically NOT be on the table?

Green Blow Fly said...

I will wait to see what the GW FAQ has to say.

:P

G

Green Blow Fly said...

Here is my take again on the Mawloc, deep striking and it's special rule Terror from the Deep. First many people have said the codex is very balanced. The only possible exception could be the DoM if GW FAQs it's Life Leech special rule can target enemy units embarked in transports. As far as I am aware there is no precedent for any form of attack to target embarked units so it's quite a stretch to me to say DoM can. So is it unbalanced if the Mawloc can deep strike on top of enemy units? I don't see any advantage placing the Mawloc on top of impassable terrain but maybe I am missing something. If you can place the Mawloc on top of enemy units then this has broader implications for other aspects of the game. Personally I have never seen anyone place a deep striking unit on top of enemy with one exception. When I played in Adepticon back in 2007 the TOs ruled that you could place Forgeworld spore mines on top of enemy units when they arrived via deep strike. The Forgeworld spore mines have a large blast marker that is S5 AP3 so they are great for wrecking Space Marines. This was a very controversial ruling and the next year it was overturned. Remember this was back during 4th edition. Many people such as myself read the 5th edition rules for deep strike such that anywhere on the table does not include enemy units. It seems quite simple to me and the TO for the St. Valentines Day Massacre 40k GT has overturned this ruling in the INAT FAQ.

So maybe it all just boils down to the question is placing the Mawloc on an enemy unit unbalanced. This has been discussed until everyone over at Dakka Dakka was blue in the face. I have seen people posting tactics how to destroy entire units by deep striking spore mines in such a manner that when the Mawloc arrives there is no space to move enemy units and they are destroyed. That sounds like a lot of fun to me.

G

Laen said...

I was not aware of the Mawloc replacing the the mishap rules. And if this is the case there is one other unit in the game that bends rules when deep striking. The Necron Monolith pushes units back. I honestly would think that an army fighting nids would move their butts if the ground started to churn and rumble beneath their feet. In no way will I accept that those units are destroyed simply because my opponent rolled a target on a D6 for his Mawloc to enter play on top of my units. At least not without have more disadvantages... like the imp guard tank... they have to guess range, then roll scatter. But, maybe this is where the game is going. It certainly seems like it might be.. More Swarms, faster ways to kill them. It would certainly change the pace of the game and make it seem more like an actual battle. For instance, the new Space Wolf units that are dirt cheap. We'll know for sure when the Blood Angel codex comes out. If the Blood Angels have a really cheap marine unit choice that supports marine swarms... well... then we'll have our answer. And if you think about it.. why wouldn't GW do it? They will just make more money. Because the veteran fans will either adapt or continue playing while waiting for 6th ed. I'm a big fan of small tough armies. But, back to the Mawloc.. It might be intended... but I don't think it should simply destroy units that it Deep Strikes onto. I'll try and pick up the nid codex tomorrow afternoon and compare the rule to the monolith rule and see if my thoughts on this have any validity.

Peace!

Matt Varnish said...

See the other thing for me is this: If GW truly didnt intend for it to be able to deepstrike onto enemy units, then why bother writing that long paragraph about what happens when it comes out of the ground then? What is the point of a Mawloc then.. It has this huge gaping jaw that you cannot use? Barely anyone takes Mawlocs as is, if GW rules that you cannot intentionally place under an enemy model, then it is the final nail in the Mawloc coffin, in comparison to a Trygon.

Green Blow Fly said...

Matt there are a ton of useless units in every codex. Who is takes Blood Claws now? Who takes penitent engines? Who takes ratling snipers? Who takes Cullexus assassin?

Your point is moot.

See what I did there?

:P

G